
Pass 1 ■ . >•. .■ 
Book^Sjl._L. 



xO o,. 



.-,•^ ■/:/ 






^^-^ ^c. 






v^" 



/ 



1% , 






\ %y:^^.' 



OO' 



v*" 


















'% 



%,^^' 
.S^ %. 









^'^^ .-^<^r.^o'-' ,0-^ 



*; ^. I k-"-. ^ o jO^. >■ ^^ 



^v /'^..^^^^r^:^ 






\'<W^S ^^ 






1 ' X V*' 






•n?- 






-^. ,,^ 












,A 






c 



-0 



-x\^ 



^.-"o. 



^^^^1^''. '-^ 



\^ ^. 



o. » 






a5 '^.- 



/. -»•- .\\' .S-. 



ci^^ * 



/^^ 






V, ^;^. 



^^^•^^' ^ 



-^<< 












.0^ 









<^\ \ N C^ ' -^C 



x- . ^' V ^x. 






,0^ ^ ^ * « A ^^ 



V, -^ 



^^ .^^ 



^ '%. - ^ 






i^. 



-^-^■\^.-^.'-> 









/: .v^^'% ^^ 



V-, V 



* oV 



%^<i-. 






^'^^ .>!.:,''. -^^ 



-=,. "rrr^'-' <o 



I ^ / ^..^--z^^ 



^^ 



,0o. 









\- »^ V '-'. > 



^^*o^:o> / 










^y: 



%%'^- 



>'.. .x^^'X '. 



= ^^,^^ 



.^^ %. 



-O- s 



■ . , fl <^ ^ O * X ■* a'^ 



. <t 



.<.,. 



^ , -^^ 









*^'', 






/. 



,^-^ ^<t< 



-^ ,..^ 






;o^' 



.-^^^' »' 



o. 






Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/solonathenianOOIinf 



SEMICENTENNIAL PUBLICATIONS 

OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 




1868-1918 



[X^-0 - ^'-rii 



SOLON THE ATHENIAN 



% 



y 



IVAN M.^ LINFORTH 



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS 

BERKELEY 

1919 



-7 A 



SEP 



Of B. 

25 iy20 



PEEFAOE 

The present work falls into two distinct parts, a biography 
of Solon and an edition of the fragments of his poems. The 
biographical essay should not be regarded as an introduction to 
the text of the poems and the commentary upon them. Since 
our knowledge of Solon's life is not extensive and since the 
fragments of his poems are few, it is possible to include within 
one small book two things which in other cases would offer 
material for two separate books. This is in one sense a happy 
circumstance, because the reader can have before him in brief 
space all that can be brought together about Solon. 

The biographical essay presents the results of a critical study 
of all the evidence available on the life of Solon. A sceptical 
attitude has been adopted alike toward ancient legend and 
modern hypothesis. If the attitude seems oversceptical, this is 
not much to be regretted ; it is better in such a business to tell 
nothing but the truth than to risk falsehood through fear of not 
telling the whole truth. But whatever has been rejected has 
received due consideration in footnotes or appendices. 

No critical discussion is offered of Solon's code of laws ; in- 
deed, it is not certain that such a discussion would be really 
fruitful. None at any rate has yet been made.^ No one has 
even taken the first step in the investigation and subjected to 
critical examination all the laws which in ancient times passed 
as the laws of Solon, with a view to determining just which are 
authentic and which are not. It may be that so few would be 
recognized as genuinely Solonian that the next step in the 
investigation would be impossible. But even if a small body of 

1 Cf. p. 71, footnote 2. 



\\' PREFACE 

genuinely Solonian laws were recovered, an estimate of their 
value and significance would still be extremely difficult because 
of our ignorance of conditions ])efore and after the establish- 
ment of the code. It" such a study could be successfully carried 
tliroiiL;li, it should yield results of great value for the biographer 
of Solon, l)ut it nnist be left to special students of the history 
of Athenian law. 

The reader will miss the extended treatment of certain topics 
which occupy much of the attention of historians in writing of 
tlie period of Solon. The biography does not pretend to offer 
a comprehensive discussion of the social and economic conditions 
of Athens, of the state of Athenian law, or of the forms of 
A tlienian government. What is knoAvn of the reforms of Solon 
is tlie most valuable single piece of evidence for this wider 
study ; there is, indeed, no other direct evidence. It is the task 
of the general historian and of the student of constitutional and 
legal antitjuities to use this evidence and, with the help of 
analogy, cond)ination, and conjecture, to attempt to restore the 
history of pre-Solonian and Solonian times. We cannot say 
that we have anything more than a hypothetical understanding 
of the events and institutions of the period. If our knowledge 
were fairly sure and complete, the biographer of Solon would 
have no excuse for neglecting the study of the larger move- 
ments in wliieli he played a part. A proper biography of a 
statesman is also a history of his times. In the present instance 
sueli a proper biography is impossible. Either one must enter 
on the ])roa(l held of history with scanty evidence and fearless 
conjecture as his guides ; or he must confine himself to the 
career of Solon and hold fast to sound evidence. 

ill the airangenient of the poetical fragments editors l^ive 
usually aimed to observe the chronologieal order of composi- 
tion. I>ut no two have adopted the same arrangement, because 
it is i!n])ossible to determine the true chronological order. I 
have tlierefori' not attempted an arrangement of this sort, pre- 



PREFACE V 

ferring not to leave the reader with an impression of certainty 
about a thing which is only a matter of opinion. On the other 
hand, it is very important that the fragments should be read 
with the context of the passages in which they are quoted ; the 
recognition of this principle leads naturally to an arrangement 
according to the chronological order of the quoting authors, 
which is the one adopted. 

The text of the fragments has been independently constructed 
on the basis of the text and critical apparatus of the editions 
from which the citations are made.^ The statement of manu- 
script variants which is given in these editions is accepted as 
authoritative,^ and the same abbreviations and symbols are em- 
ployed. There are recorded in the textual notes : (1) all 
cases in which the reading adopted differs from the reading of 
the edition from which the citation is made ; (2) all cases in 
which the reading adopted, though it is the same as that of the 
accepted edition, is nevertheless not supported by any good 
manuscript or is the result of pure conjecture ; and (3) all cases 
in which the reading adopted differs from the reading of the 
testimonia. Therefore, to put it in summary form, it is to be 
assumed that the text of this book, the text of the accepted 
edition of the author who quotes the fragment, at least one 
good manuscript of that author, and the testimonia (if there 
are any) are in entire accord, unless divergences are indicated 
in the textual notes. The only exception to this rule is in 
matters of spelling. The spelling of the text of Hiller-Crusius 
has been followed throughout without comment. The principles 
on which Crusius determined the correct spelling may be found 
on page v of the Anthologia Lyrica. No conjectural emenda- 
tions, except those which have been admitted into the text, are 
recorded in the textual notes. 



1 A list of these editions and the editions of the authors from whom the testi- 
monia are drawn will be found in Appendix 9. 

'^ Except in the case of Diogenes Laertius (see commentary on xxxiv). 



VI PREFACE 

One remark should be made about the commentary. The 
many parallel passages which are quoted are not introduced 
simply because of some curious similarity of form or idea, but 
because they are thought to contribute to the proper under- 
standing of Solon's verse. Quotations from Homer, Hesiod, 
and the elegiac poets, in particular, are intended to illustrate 
forms of thought or speech which were conventional in Solon's 
time or which he borroAved from others. 

I desire to express here my obligation to my friend and col- 
league, Mr. Torsten Petersson, for the generous assistance which 
lie has afforded me. He has not only read the manuscript 
tlirough and offered many most valuable suggestions, but, better 
than this, lie has come to my aid with his wise counsel at many 
perplexing moments during the writing of the book. For 
these things I am deeply grateful. 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

BIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 

I. The Record of Solon in Antiquity ... 3 
11. Before the Archonship . . . . .27 

III. The Archonship 46 

IV. After the Archonship 91 

V. The Poems 103 

THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 

I. Text and Translation 129 

11. Commentary ........ 173 

APPENDICES 

1. Salamis 249 

2. Date of the Archonship 265 

3. The Seisachtheia 269 

4. The Laws and the Axones ..... 275 

5. Changes in Weights, Measures, and Currency, 

and in the calendar 287 

C. Travels 297 

7. Relations with Pisistratus .... 303 

8. Death and Burial 308 

9. Bibliography 311 



vii 



BIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 



CHAPTER I 
RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 



Lawgiver, one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece, founder of 
the Athenian democracy — these are the titles which are asso- 
ciated with the name of Solon in the minds of well informed persons 
of the present da5^ If they are pressed a little, these same well 
informed persons may recall at least one good story about him, 
the famous story of his interview with Croesus, king of Lydia; 
and if they are urged to tell how they know these things,they 
will say without much hesitation that they learned them from the 
incomparable Plutarch or perhaps read of Croesus in Herodotus. 
Some, but probably not all, will remember that Solon was a poet 
as well as a statesman and therefore doubly a representative of 
the city whose glory springs in large measure from her matchless 
poetry and her indomitable love of liberty. These random recol- 
lections are all true and well founded, and they are enough to 
show that the man of whom such things can be said deserves to be 
better known. Whither shall we turn in order to learn more about 
him ? ^ We can read Plutarch's life again ; but can we believe 
all he tells us? And are there no other ancient records by which 
we can supplement and correct the account which Plutarch gives? 
If, in order to answer these questions, we survey the record of 
Solon in the ancient authors, we shall find that many besides 
Plutarch had something to say of him. W^e shall also find that 
the ancient tradition followed certain well defined lines, which 
were fixed partly by the historical facts of his career and partly 
by legends which had become attached to his name. But before 

1 On the sources for Solon in general, consult Busolt (1895, pp. 1-65, espe- 
cially 39-49 and 58 ff., and 255 ff.) ; Gilliard (1907, pp. 16-28) 



4 SOLOX THE ATHENIAN 

we examine the nature of the ancient record itself, v;e should 
first inquire about the character of the foundations upon which it 
rests, in order that we may know what measure of confidence may 
be placed in it as a true report of the actual facts of Solon's life. 
We certainly cannot push back the possibility of a written record 
of any sort beyond the middle of the fifth century B.C. at the 
earliest ; but Solon himself lived in the first half of the sixth 
century. By what means could knowledge of events in the 
early part of the sixth century have been transmitted through the 
one or two centuries that intervened before men began to write 
the history of them? If there had been no means, we should 
be forced to confess that all that has been told us about Solon 
is mere unreliable tradition. But fortunately there were a few 
bridges across the gulf. 

The firmest of these was Solon's own poetrj' , a concrete struc- 
ture reenforced with the bonds of meter, which was unshaken by 
the lapse of time. The poems must have come down through the 
years substantially in the form in which they were originally com- 
posed, and they were a clear and intelligible voice out of the past. 
Furthermore, these poems were a historical document of great 
value ; for many, if not most of them, were occasional poems, 
dealing with the events in which Solon himself played a part. 
Tliei-e can therefore be little room for doubt about their authen- 
ticity. The fragments which survive afford us a surprising amount 
of information ; the whole body of Solon's poetry, which was 
available in ancient times, must have yielded much more. 

A second source of information which was freel}^ drawn upon 
by the ancient writers was found in the laws which were attrib- 
uted to Solon. Here their footing was much more insecure. 
The authenticity of the laws is open to very grave question, as 
we shall see.^ But in the hands of critical scholars they could 
have been made to yield some information of great value. 

* Appendix 4. 



RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 5 

A third source of precise information about the past was to 
be found in the official records of the state. These were, indeed, 
very meager, and for the early part of the sixth century prob- 
ably did not go beyond the official list of archons. But this was 
something. And outside of Athens, there was the list of victors 
in the Pythian games at Delphi from which, we are told,^ Aris- 
totle derived some information about Solon's share in the Sacred 
War. 

Lastly, there were the frail strands of oral tradition leading 
back into the past. And oral tradition is not to be scorned as 
a source of historical information, though it must be handled with 
a most delicate critical judgment. In some things it can tell the 
truth, in others it is a mere conscienceless myth-monger. Un- 
fortunately Greek annalists and biographers did not deal criti- 
cally with their sources, and it is difficult for us to separate those 
of their statements which rest upon sound evidence from those 
which are only hanging in the air. In examining reports of 
events in the first half of the sixth century we must be suspi- 
cious of all stories which are told with much circumstantial de- 
tail. Such small baggage is easily lost in a voyage of a hundred 
years and is just as easily replaced by fresh inventions. But it 
is perhaps even more important that we should not yield to un- 
critical agnosticism, flatly denying the validity of all oral tradi- 
tion. The main facts are likely to come through, and should be 
accepted without too much hesitation, especially if there is some 
collateral support for them. 

These are the four ways in which the ancient authors could 
learn something of Solon and his times. We have no knowledge 
of any other.^ No assertion which was not founded upon one or 

1 Plut. Sol. xi. 

2 Cf. Beloch (1912, p. 364) : " Glaubwtirdig ist diese Ueberlieferung (i.e., 
Const, of Ath., Plutarch, and Diogenes Laertius) nur insoweit, als sie auf die 
Gediclite Solons und seine Gesetze zurtickgeht. Von diesen Gesetzen sind aber 
diejenigen, die sich auf die Sozialreform und die Neuordnung der Verfassung 
bezogen, zum grossten Teil sclionfriih verloren gegangen, da sie keine praktische 



G SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

the other of these Hnes of evidence can be accepted as true. And 
even in cases where the ancient writers had such evidence at hand, 
we must still question their critical judgment in the use of it. If 
they have preserved for us the poem or the law upon which their 
statements are based, we are in a position to test and verify; 
otherwise we cannot be sure. But even when statements are made 
which are not supported by any law or poem which we, too, have 
before our eyes, we must still admit that they may be justified 
by evidence which the ancient authors had and which we have 
not. 

For us at the present day the evidence which is available 
for the determination of the truth about the life and works of 
Solon falls into two main divisions. The first, in which we can 
put great confidence, includes the actual extant writings of Solon 
himself, the poems mainly, and, as far as we can believe them au- 
thentic, the laws. The second is the ancient tradition, preserved 
through a long line of writers, overlaid with legend, resting ul- 
timately on the same poems which we have and others besides, 
on a large body of doubtful laws, on meager official records, and on 
vague popular report. This ancient record we can trust just so 
far as we can satisfy ourselves that it is based solidly on the four 
original foundations, and just so far as w^e can satisfy ourselves 
that the foundations themselves in each case were secure. This 
means that we can accept little besides what we know w^as learned 
from the poems and the official records. We do not need to 
trouble ourselves overmuch with the confused relationships 
between our ancient authorities. The earliest of them were 
scarcely in a better position for learning the facts than the latest. 
The poems told the tale, and all who could read them with dis- 
cernment knew all that could be truly known about their author. 

Bedcutiini; mehr liatlen . . . Andererseits iralt spiiter ja manches Gesetz als 
soloniscli. (las erst lanu^c; iiach Solon j^ci^cben war. So beruht das Bild, 
dius mis von Solons ])()liiisclit;m Wirken Uberliefert ist, zum grossen Teil auf 
CombiiiatioiH'ii."" 



RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 7 

We shall now proceed to examine in greater detail these two 
main sources of information : first, the poems themselves, both 
those which we still possess and those of whose former existence 
we have some trace ; and then, in a cursory way, the development 
of the biography of Solon in the ancient writers. 



The fragments that survive, and which are attributed to Solon 
by the authors in whose works they appear, number some two 
hundred eighty-three verses.^ Some of these so-called fragments 
are probably complete poems ; most of them, however, are 
manifestly only portions of longer poems. In only one case 
have we any information concerning the actual length of the whole 
poem from which portions are quoted : the poem called ^'Salamis" 
was one hundred verses in length, and of these one hundred verses 
we have only eight, four in one fragment and two in each of two 
others. 2 

Besides what we can learn from the extant fragments, we have 
very little precise information concerning Solon's poetical works. 
Diogenes Laertius,^ in a brief and carelessly written list of his 
works, includes ''Salamis," poems of self-counsel, and political 
poems, all in elegiac verse ; and other poems in iambic and epodic 
verse. He mentions the number of five thousand verses, but it 
is not clear whether this number is intended to include all the 
poems, or only those in elegiac verse, or only the ''Salamis" and 
the political poems. But in any case the number seems exces- 
sively large for a man who did not make poetry his principal occu- 
pation. 

1 The elegiac fragments, of %Yhich the two longest (xl andxii) are respectively 
76 and 40 lines in length, number 215 verses ; the iambic fragments, of which 
the longest (ix) consists of 27 verses, number in all 42 verses ; the trochaic 
fragments, 20. Besides these there are two hexameters and four or five lines in 
lyric meter. 

2 XX, xxxiv, XXXV. See pp. 40 ff. and Appendix 1. ^ iQl. 



S 



8 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Plutarch ' divides the poetical works into two classes. The 
earlier poems, he says, were written for diversion and amusement ; 
these are probably the ones he has in mind when he says that 
Solon speaks of pleasure with more freedom than becomes a 
pliil()s()j)her. The later poems are devoted to moral and politi- 
cal (lucstions: some contained exhortations, admonitions, and re- 
bukes addressed to the Athenians ; others were written in defense 
of his public acts as a statesman. 

In a few cases definite poems seem to be referred to by ancient 
authors which are not actually quoted. 

Plato, in the Timaeus,- says that Solon frequently alludes 
to the intimacy which existed between himself and the family 
of Dropides, the great-grandfather of Critias. A single line ^ 
survives which apparently belonged to one of the poems con- 
taining such an allusion. 

Aristotle refers to poems, which he does not quote, in which 
Solon expressed his unwillingness to soil his reputation by at- 
tempting to make himself tyrant of Athens;"^ and to others, be- 
sides those which he quotes himself, in which Solon laid the blame 
for the civil disorder in Athens on the rich.^ And it is possible 
that in one place ® he is quoting indirectly from a poem in which, 
after his archonship, Solon announced his intention of going 
abroad for ten years.'' 

* Sol. iii. 2 20e ; cf. also Charmides 157 e. 3 xxxix. 

4 Const, of Ath. vi 4, Fra<^ments xxi and xxii probably belong to this 
group. 

^ Const, of Ath. V 3. Fragments xii, xvii, xl probably belong to this 
group. 

G Const, of Ath. xi 1. 

7 Bekker thought he found a bit of verse embedded in Plutarch's narrative 
(Sol. xv). Tlic prose runs as follows : (f)o^r]d€ls fxij (n^7x^as Travrdiraa-i Kai rapd^as 
T7JV TrdXiv daOep^arepo^ y^vrjTai tou KaracrTTjcrai irdXiv Kal <xvvapfx6aaa6ai irphs rb 
Apiaroy. From this he constructs tlu' following trochaics : 

(rv7X^as diravrdTraai Kal rapd^as rrjv irdXLV 
dadeviarepos y^pufxai toO KaTaaTTJcrai irdXiv. 

Bergk thinks the words are Plutarch's own ; Wilamowitz recognizes them as 



RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 9 

Most of the fragments owe their preservation to their .impor- 
tance as historical documents. It may be that if we had all of 
Solon's poetical works we should not find the poUtical poems so 
largely preponderating. There would undoubtedly be a larger 
proportion dealing with lighter themes. 

We cannot, of course, expect to date the fragments with any 
precision and recover the exact circumstances of their composition.^ 
But certain ones were manifestly written before the archonship 
and certain ones after. The lines are too few in number to enable 
us to detect any change in style or increase in skill. It is interest- 
ing to observe that the longer elegiac poems belong to the earlier 
period and the principal iambic and trochaic fragments to the 
later. But this may be a mere accident in the preservation. 
There is undoubtedly a marked change in Solon's political opin- 
ions : before he put his reforms into effect, he was disposed to 
lay the blame for the misfortunes of Athens on the greed of the 
rich ; later he was equally convinced of the folly and incapacity 
of the lower classes. 

It seems almost necessary to believe that Solon's poems were 
recorded in writing by himself.^ Many of them, being occasional 

by Solon. It is not likely that Plutarch would thus quote two lines without in- 
dicating that they are a quotation. In Sol. ii he quotes i indirectly, but the 
quotation is very brief ; Aristotle in Const, of Ath. v 3 and Plutarch in Sol. xiv 
5 quote v, a single pentameter. But in the present case we must recognize the 
trochaic rhythm as accidental ; and after all nothing is gained by adding so un- 
certain a fragment to the collection of genuine fragments. The idea which is 
expressed in the sentence we may safely believe to have been in Solon's mind, 
because it really lay at the bottom of his whole policy. 

1 AVilamowitz (189.3, II, 304 ff.) undertakes to piece together like a puzzle the 
fragments of Solon's poems, and, with the help of what he takes as indirect 
quotations from the poems in Plutarch and Aristotle, to restore the several poems 
in their entirety, to outline the course of thought in each, and to assign them to 
the several periods in Solon's life. It is an ingenious study, but unconvincing ; 
indeed its plausibility is deceptive, because it leaves in the reader's mind seem- 
ing-true ideas which are after all only guesses. Many of the shorter fragments 
are arbitrarily assigned to Solon's later years without a shred of justification. 
There is no such degree of certainty about Solon's career as the reader of this 
chapter would be led to believe. 

2 Heinemann (1897, pp. 45 ff.) thinks that an edition of the poems was pre- 
pared either by Solon himself or soon after his death. But he concludes, justly, 



10 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

and in the nature of apologies for his own acts, would hardly have 
survived in the popular memory alone. Dissatisfied as they were 
with the results of Solon's reforms, the Athenians would not 
naturally have committed to memory, or encouraged their rhapso- 
dists to commit to memory, the poems which Solon wrote in his 
own defense. Furthermore, some of his poems are addressed to 
individuals,^ and it seems natural that they should have been 
sent to the persons for whom they were intended. 

There is only one hint in the ancient authors of any method 
of publication, and this is untrustworthy. Solon is supposed to 
have memorized the ''Salamis" and recited it publicly in the 
market place. Though we cannot accept this particular tradi- 
tion, it seems likely that this was the regular method of publica- 
tion. ^ But public recitation before various groups of citizens by 
the author himself was probably only the first step in the dis- 
semination of the poems. They would then be repeated by 
others ; and a few written copies would be made. 

What may fairly be regarded as the earliest allusion to poems 
of Solon is found in Plato's Timaeus.^ Critias, the oligarch, 
who is a speaker in the dialogue, says that when he was a lad of 
ten years it was a common thing for the boys who took part in the 
competitive recitations at the festival of the Apaturia, to recite 
the poems of Solon, which were new at the time. There is no 
reason to doubt the truth of this statement — it was a thing about 
which Plato could easily have definite knowledge — and we may take 
it as proof that there was a well recognized collection of poems by 
Solon in the first half of the fifth century. One is struck by the 

that there is little probability that the names of the poems which are recorded 
and which appear in modern editions were actually given by Solon (pp. 35 ff.). 

1 xxi, xxii, xxvi, xxxvii, and possibly xxxix. 

2 On the recitation of elegies at social gatherings, see Croiset (1903, pp. 583, 
684). 

3 20(1-21 d. There is a (juotation from xiv in a play of the comic poet Cratinns 
(see commentary on xiv), which was probably even earlier. Critias was born 
about 460 ii.c. 



RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 11 

remark that they were new at the time, when as a matter of 
fact they had been written between fifty and one hundred years 
before. The explanation probably is to be found in the fact that 
these poems would have been thought of as modern in contrast 
with Homer and Hesiod. Plato may also have been led to speak 
as he does by the fact that in his own day Solon's poems were 
no longer recited on such occasions, having become old-fashioned 
in the midst of the abundant Athenian poetry of the fifth cen- 
tury. So there was for Plato a certain propriety in calling them 
new, both by contrast with the oldest Greek poetry on the one 
hand, and with the more recent poetry of his own day on the 
other. 

There is abundant evidence for the existence of the collection 
in Herodotus, Plato, Demosthenes, and Aristotle, and it seems 
probable that it continued in existence throughout antiquity. 
Of course many of the quotations in the later authors could have 
been drawn from the works of earlier writers.^ But some of these 
quotations are of a kind which could hardly have been made except 
from the collection itself. The grammarians and lexicographers 
quote passages as examples of the use of particular words. Athe- 
naeus has a quotation ^ which he says was ''in the iambics," 
as if he was acquainted with a collection of the iambic poems. 
Proclus ^ makes some very judicious comments on Solon's style, 
which he could hardly have made unless he had read a considerable 
number of the poems ; and there was certainly no collection of 
fragments like ours in his day. Lastly, the longest extant poem of 
Solon is not found earlier than the anthology of Stobaeus, and this 
poem, of seventy-six lines, Stobaeus could hardly have found 
already quoted in the text of an earlier author, — though it may 
have been contained in some earlier anthology. 

1 E.g., the poems quoted by Aristides (second century a.d.) are all believed 
to be taken from the Const, of Ath. ; see Piatt (1896). 

2 xxxiii. 

3 Ad Plat. Rep., vol. i, p. 65 Kroll ; Ad Plat. Tim., vol. i, p. 93 Diehl. 



12 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Fortunately, the greater part of the extant verse can be rec- 
ognized as the authentic work of Solon with the utmost con- 
fidence, because it is concerned with the public events in which 
he played a principal part. As for the fragments which deal with 
general subjects, there is no reason to deny his authorship. The 
whole amount of Solonian poetry which we possess is too meager 
to justify us in rejecting this or that fragment on inner grounds of 
style and spirit. Onh^ two of the fragments must be definitely 
set aside as late forgeries : ^ one, the two hexameter verses which 
were supposed to be the introduction to a metrical version of the 
laws ; the other, the lyric fragment which is drawn from a group 
of spurious scolia forged by Lobon of Argos and ascribed to the 
Seven Wise Men. 

Tlie principal difficulty in the matter of authenticity lies in 
the fact that a number of the Solonian fragments are also found 
among the poems which are ascribed to Theognis ; and we must 
ask ourselves which of the two poets has the better claim to 
them. 

It is generally recognized that the collection of elegiac poems 
which goes under the name of Theognis is something in the nature 
of an anthology, though there is considerable difference of opinion 
concerning the exact amount that is to be attributed to Theognis 
himself. Practically all scholars are agreed that the lines in 
Theognis which are elsewhere attributed to Solon are actually the 
work of Solon, and that, in one way or another, they have been 
included in the Theognidean collection. In view of the definite 
ascription to Solon and the composite nature of the Theognidean 
collection this is a just conclusion. And it is not shaken by the 
fact that a few verses which are ascribed to Solon and also in- 
c1u(1(m1 in Theognis are quoted by later authors as from Theognis.^ 
This accident is due to the fact tliat the quotations were actually 

1 xviii and xxxviii. See commentary. 

2 xvi and xvi-a in Stob. iv 33, 7. 



RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 13 

drawn from the Theognidean collection and the authors did not 
know that they were really by Solon. In one case Stobaeus 
assigns some verses to Theognis which he has already in another 
place assigned to Solon. ^ There are in all some twenty-six verses 
by Solon which are also found in Theognis. ^ The extent and. 
character of the differences between the two versions are dis- 
cussed in the commentary. 

Since we have evidence to show that as many as twenty-six 
verses in Theognis properly belong to Solon, it is reasonable to 
suppose that there are still other poems by Solon imbedded in the 
Theognidean collection, if we only had the means of detecting 
them. Many attempts have been made to show that particular 
verses belong to him, but with a single exception none is convinc- 
ing.^ Language, versification, style, and ideas offer very frail 
criteria in the case of two authors whose work is in many ways 
so similar and whose extant poems are so inconsiderable in amount. 

3 

The earliest appearance of Solon's name in extant Greek 
literature is found in a fragment of two lines from a comedy of 
Cratinus,^ who lived about the middle of the fifth century 
B.C. Solon himself is represented as the speaker, and he alludes 
to the popular belief that his own ashes had been scattered over 
the island of Salamis. The significance of this curious notion 

1 xl 65-70 in Stob. iii 9, 23 and iv 47, 16. 

2 ii = 1253 f. ; vii 3 f.=r 153 f. ; xvi = 719-724 ; xvii 1-4 = 315-318 ; xl 65-70 
= 585-590 ; xl 71-76 =i 227-232. The extent and character of the differences 
between the two versions are discussed in the commentary. Cf. also Heine- 
mann (1897, pp. 16 ff.). 

3 The exception is found in vss. 725-728. Vss. 719-728 form a complete 
unit ; vss. 719-724 are ascribed to Solon by Plutarch ; it is altogether probable 
therefore that the four lines 725-728 should be included in Solon'^s poem. These 
four lines are printed in the present edition as an appendix to xvi and are num- 
bered xvi-a. In view of the many divergences betwee^^ the text of Plutarch for 
xvi and the text of Theognis we cannot assume that xvi-a is in exactly the form 
in which it was written by Solon. 

4 Diogenes Laertius i 62. This is not the same fragment as that referred to 
on page 10, footnote 3- 



14 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

will be better understood later when we have learned what Solon 
did for the Athenians in Salamis. But in the meantime it is 
interesting to observe that this first allusion to the great Athenian, 
separated from his own lifetime by a century and more, presents 
him to us almost in the guise of a m3'thological hero. In the 
history of Herodotus, which was composed about the same time, 
Solon is mentioned on several occasions : ^ the longest passage is 
an account of his legendary meeting with Croesus ; but besides 
this there is recorded at least one real fact in his life. Thu- 
cydides is entirely silent on the subject of Solon ; but Aristophanes 
and Plato, a little later, speak of him in a number of places 
as a legislator, a poet, and a Wise Man. In Demosthenes and 
the orators he is a familiar name, being accepted by them as 
typical of all that is best in Athenian government and law ; in 
their minds and in the minds of their auditors he had come to 
represent the ideal form of democratic government, equally re- 
moved from obnoxious oligarchy and from the fierce democracy 
which ruled in Athens toward the close of the fifth century. He 
typified a vague ideal which all parties could unite in applaud- 
ing. Aristotle, too, as a student of political institutions, was a 
warm admirer of Solon, and, as we shall see, has much to tell us 
about him. 2 Thereafter frequent allusions to him are found in 
all kinds of books, — in the learned writers of the fourth cen- 
tury and later ages, in the lexicographers and grammarians, and 
in the anonymous commentaries which are preserved on the mar- 
gin of ancient manuscripts. 

Among all these authors there were some who dealt witli the 
life and works of Solon more particularly and at greater length, 
not in the form of brief references, but in connected narratives. 
Some of these accounts, like that of Plutarch, happily still sur- 

1 i 2«-34, 86 ; ii 177 ; v 113. 

2 Outside of the Const, of Ath., the principal passages are in the Politics (ii 
12, 1273 b, 84 ff. ; ii 7, 1266 b, 17 ; iii 11, 1281 b, 32). 



RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 15 

Vive ; others we know nothing about except through indirect report. 
But in order that we may understand the character of the ancient 
record, we must not be satisfied merely with an examination of 
the extant books ; we must also try to recover something of those 
that are lost. The list of authors in whom we can still read short 
accounts, a page or two in length, of various circumstances in 
Solon's career is fairlj^ long and includes many names besides the 
writers already mentioned.^ 

More important than these, however, are the more extended 
accounts which have been left us by Aristotle, Diodorus Siculus, 
Plutarch, and Diogenes Laertius. These four constitute our 
principal source of information. They are widely separated in 
time, and it is only through accident that they are the only im- 
portant extant accounts out of all the literary and scholarly works 
of many centuries. It is not to be supposed that there is neces- 
sarily any chain connecting the four in such a way that each is 
to be regarded as dependent upon his predecessor. The study 
of their sources has been pursued with great diligence, and we 
know that they drew their material from many writers whose 
books are now lost. We shall examine these four accounts a little 
more carefully and attempt to restore from them some of the 
missing links in the biographical tradition. Since our knowledge 
of the lost writers is derived only from allusions to them in sub- 
sequent literature, it will be convenient to begin with the latest 
of the four extant accounts, that of Diogenes Laertius, and pro- 
ceed from him to the earlier. 

Diogenes Laertius' life of Solon, about six pages in length, 
was composed in the early part of the third century a.d. and is 

1 The following may be noted : Aeneas Tacticus, Comm. Pol. iv 8 ff . ; Justi- 
nus, ii 7 f . ; Frontinus, Strateg. ii 9, 9 ; Aelian, F. H. vii 19 and viii 16 ; Polyaenus, 
Strateg. i 20 ; Suidas, s.v. SoAwv. etc. Short summaries of the principal features 
of Solon's life are also to be found in an anonymous Vita Solonis (in Biographi 
Graeci, ed. Westermann, p. 11.3) and in the scholia to Plat. Rep. x 599 e and 
Demosthenes xlv 64. 



16 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

to be found in the first book of his Lives of the Philosophers. It 
is an altogether uncritical compilation of scattered scraps of in- 
formation concerning Solon and his work. Besides the traditional 
matter, it contains a few of Solon's poems, many sayings and apoph- 
thegms attributed to him, and some spurious letters supposed 
to have been written by him to Periander, Epimenides, Pisistratus, 
and Croesus. Diogenes mentions a few of his authorities by name, 
among whom the most important seems to have been one Sosic- 
rates of Rhodes who lived early in the Christian era. But it 
is generally assumed that his principal sources were the same as 
Plutarch's,^ which will be discussed presenth'. 

Plutarch's biography, the longest and fullest account which 
we possess of Solon and his times, consists of about thirty-five 
pages, and was written in the second century a.d. Little is to be 
found in other authors which is not also given by him. Many 
poems are quoted ; and much that he has to tell us is demon- 
strably true. But large portions of the biography are legendary 
in character; and frequently small matters which are known to 
be true in themselves are expanded into long narratives, charming 
in style but unreliable in substance. Plutarch's fondness for 
anecdote and his well known preoccupation with the moral im- 
plications of his subject detract from his historical accuracy, 
here as elsewhere. But the total impression of the character of 
Solon which he leaves with the reader is entirely harmonious with 
his true character as far as it is revealed in his own poems. Be- 
sides the poems of Solon which he quotes as evidence, Plutarch 
mentions during the course of the biography some fourteen or 
fifteen writers as authorities for various statements, but he had 
probably not consulted them all directly. Among them are 
Androtion, Aristotle, Heracleides Ponticus, Demetrius of Phale- 
rum, Theophrastus, Phanias of Lesbos, Hereas of Megara. But 
modern investigation has shown that his principal sources, out- 
iSeeBusolt (1895, p. 50). 



RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 17 

side of Solon's own poems, were the learned writers, Didymus and 
Hermippus.^ 

Hermippus of Smyrna lived about 200 B.C. He was the 
author of Biographies of Illustrious Men {pioi tCjv iv 7rat8eta 
SuLXafiil/dvTwv) , of which large work the names of certain por- 
tions are known. Among these are sections ''Concerning the 
Seven Wise Men" and ''Concerning Lawgivers." Solon might 
have found a place equally well under either of these heads. The 
work of Hermippus, which must have been an uncritical collec- 
tion of traditional lore, is known to have been widely used as a 
source by later writers, and probably Plutarch derived from it 
most of his biographical material. It is supposed, furthermore, 
that Plutarch's acquaintance with Androtion, Herodotus, Theo- 
phrastus, and other early authors came through Hermippus. 
There is some doubt whether either Hermippus or Plutarch used 
Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. 

Didymus of Alexandria was an extraordinarily prolific writer 
who lived at the very beginning of the Christian era. Among the 
numberless works in which he gathered up the learning of his 
predecessors was one on the laws of Solon {irepl rdv diovoiv toov 
SoAcovos dvTcypapr] tt/oo? 'AcTKXrjTndSrjv) , which is mentioned by Plu- 
tarch, 2 and from which he probably learned what he has to tell 
us in the long section of his biography which he devotes to 
Solon's laws. 

Earlier than Plutarch, but infinitely less important, is the 
brief account of Solon which is preserved in the fragmentary ninth 
book of the history of Diodorus Siculus, who lived just at the dawn 
of the Christian era. Most of what Diodorus has to say of Solon 
is legendary in character and of little value. He gives no hint of 
the sources of his information about Solon ; but it is known that 
he derived some of his material at least, directly or indirectly, 
from Ephorus and Hermippus.^ The biographer Hermippus, as 
1 See Busolt (1895, p. 58). 2 Sol. i. ^ See Busolt (1895, p. 59). 



18 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

we have seen, lived some two centuries earlier than Diodorus. 
Ephorus lived a century and a half before Hermippus. He was 
a pupil of the school of Isocrates and wrote a universal history of 
the Greeks from the return of the Heracleidae to about the mid- 
dle of the fourth century B.C. This work consisted of no less than 
thirty books ; but this is little enough for the history of so long a 
period, and we cannot suppose that the space given to Solon and 
his times was very considerable. 

We come now to the fourth and earliest account of Solon's 
career, which consists of about twelve pages near the beginning of 
Aristotle's treatise on the Constitution of Athens, which was com- 
posed about the middle of the fourth century b.c. This treatise, 
which was discovered and published only in the last decade of the 
nineteenth century, has given us some fragments of Solon's 
poems which we did not have before ; but otherwise it does little 
more than corroborate or slightly modify information which we 
already possessed. The general conception of Solon which had 
been previously entertained has not been altered by Aristotle's 
account. He gives most of his attention to Solon's economic, 
legislative, and political reforms, and quotes a number of passages 
from the poems as evidence for the truth of his statements. In 
the pages devoted to Solon, Aristotle mentions no earlier writer 
by name, but he permits us to see whence he derived his informa- 
tion. First and most important as a source were Solon's own 
poems, both those which he quotes and no doubt others which he 
was familiar with ; a considerable part of Aristotle's account is sub- 
stantiated and verified by these quotations, and we have reason 
to l)elieve that other statements, too, rest upon poems which are 
not (luoted. Second, a number of laws are referred to, which 
Aristotle regarded as the work of Solon. These laws are used by 
him as evidence for certain political institutions which he at- 
tributes to Solon. Third, some conclusions concerning Solon's 
constitution are drawn from customs which still survived in 



RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 19 

Aristotle's day. Fourth, there are indications that he derived 
some information from certain conflicting traditions concerning 
some features of Solon's career. He refers expressly to the 
''account given by the popular party" (6 twi/ Syj/xonKoyv Adyos), and 
by implication gives us to understand that there was also an aris- 
tocratic or oligarchic account.^ There is nothing in the text to 
show whether these two accounts were written down or merely 
oral traditions. 2 

These four sources are the only ones that can be discerned in 
the text itself. Are we to suppose that Aristotle owed nothing 
to earlier writers ? There is very little doubt that there was such 
a source, which, though not mentioned by Aristotle, may have 
been more directly useful to him than the four sources which 
are apparent.^ This was the work of the Athenian chroniclers, 
the so-called 'Ar^tSoypat^at, who had been busying themselves 
for some years before Aristotle's time with the composition 
of prose accounts of early Athenian history.^ Among these the 
one to whom Aristotle was most indebted appears to have been 
Androtion, like Ephorus a pupil of Isocrates, and an older contem- 
porary of Aristotle, whose name is familiar to us from the well 
known speech which was delivered against him by Demosthenes. 
The book of Androtion is generally assumed to be the first written 

1 Const, of Ath. vi 3. 

2 Cf . Wilamowitz (1893, I, 55) : " Ich meine, es ist klar geworden, dass 
Aristoteles es sich mit der behandlung Solons recht leicht gemacht hat. die 
person des gesetzgebers, wie sie in den gedichten leibhaft ihm entgegentrat, in- 
teressirte ihn, und sie stellte er mittelst dieser unverfalscliten zeugnisse in ein 
belles und reines licht. aber das antiquarische detail einer verschollenen gesetz- 
gebung war dem philosoplien sehr wenig interessant. er hat weder sich selbst 
noch seinen lesern ein bild jener verfassung zu entwerfen versucht, sondern sich 
begniigt eine sehr kurze und ungleichf ormig gearbeitete skizze fast ausschliessUch 
auf grund der darstellungen zu liefern, die er bei den attidographen fand. 
dagegen hat er seine auge scharf auf das ziel gerichtet, die ausgebildete demo- 
kratie, die er nachher darstellen will : die hat Solon begrtindet, schon allein durch 
aufhebung der schuldknechtschaft ; die weiteren demokratischen grundrechte 
erortert cap. 9." 

3 For the sources of the Const, of Ath. see Busolt (1895, pp. 39-49), Seeck 
(1904), Sandys (1912, pp. Ixv ff.). 

4 On Androtion and the other Attic chroniclers see Busolt (1895, pp. 7 ff.). 



20 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

account of Solon and his age, and all later accounts are supposed 
to rest upon it, directly or indirectly. But his account of Solon 
was probably very brief, and no doubt all he had to tell is pre- 
served for us in one or another of the later authors. His sources 
were probably the same as those which we have discovered in 
Aristotle. 

This brief sketch is enough to show that our four principal 
accounts of the life and works of Solon and the lesser contributions 
to our knowledge which are scattered through the ancient authors 
are inconsiderable in extent when they are compared with the 
many writings no longer extant of which Solon was the subject. 
A few parts of the structure of ancient literature still stand above 
the waves ; but most of the foundations and supports on which 
these parts rest have been overwhelmed by time. We have been 
able to catch glimpses of a little of the substructure where it lies 
just below the surface. The names of many other authors who 
support the tradition of Solon, but whose works have sunk still 
deeper into oblivion, might be recounted if it were profitable to 
do so. But enough has been said to give a fair impression of the 
nature of the record of Solon in antiquity. If we review once more 
the names of the authors who had a major part in the transmission 
of our knowledge of Solon — Androtion, Aristotle, Ephorus, 
Hermippus, Diodorus, Didymus, Plutarch, and Diogenes — we 
observe that there were two causes in particular which led them 
to give special attention to Solon. One was the fact that he was 
the; reputed author of the first Athenian code of law ; the other 
was the fact that he was numbered among the Seven Wise Men. 
These were the two circumstances to which in the past, as in the 
present, Solon chiefly owed his fame, and it is worth while for a 
moment to push our investigation a little farther along one of the 
two lines which were followed by the ancient record, the legend of 
the Seven Wise Men. 



RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 21 



From the time of Aristotle onward, many men devoted them- 
selves to the study of the laws and the political constitutions of 
the Greek states, and manj^ books were written on these subjects. 
In most of them, it is fair to presume, the Athenian laws and 
political institutions which were attributed to Solon must have 
received their share of attention. The works of Didymus and 
Hermippus, in which we know there was much about Solon, have 
already been mentioned. Theophrastus, the pupil of Aristotle, 
is supposed tq have written a book Concerning Laws {ncpl vofxwv) : 
and his pupil, Demetrius of Phalerum, wrote a book Con- 
cerning Legislation at Athens and another Concerning the Political 
Constitutions of Athens. These last named works may very 
likely have been the source of Didymus, and therefore ultimately 
the source of that portion of Plutarch's biography which deals 
with the laws of Solon. The names of other writers on laws and 
lawgivers are also known, and they, together with the writers 
already mentioned, probably assisted in the preservation of what- 
ever information men had about Solon as a lawgiver. 

However much, or however little, writers such as these may 
have known about Solon's contribution to the legal and political 
institutions of Athens, there was at least a foundation of fact to 
their undertakings. Solon unquestionably wrote laws and modi- 
fied more or less the Athenian constitution. But the conception 
of Seven Wise Men was an arbitrary invention ; and though we 
have a little sound information about these Wise Men as individ- 
uals, all that is related about them as a group is purely legendary. 
Indeed most, though not all, of the stories about Solon which can 
be set apart as legends lacking historical foundation are attached 
to his name as one of the Seven. 

It is not known when the Greeks first began to talk of a group 



22 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

of Seven Wise Men.^ But the notion was evidently a familiar 
one b}^ the time Plato wrote the Protagoras. In this dialogue,- 
Socrates gives a list of the Seven and allows us to see that it was 
not one constructed by liimself, but rather one which was already 
recognized. The names in this list are Thales of Miletus, Pittacus 
of Mytilene, Bias of Priene, Solon of Athens, Cleobulus of Lindus, 
My son of Chene, Chilon of Sparta. In the lists which are given 
by later authors some of these names are replaced by others. 
Only four names appear in all lists. Thales, Bias, Pittacus, and 
Solon. In most lists My son is omitted, and Periander of Corinth 
is put in his place. In all, there are some twenty-two names 
which are found in one or another of these ancient lists of Seven 
Wise Men. 

Almost all the men whose names found a place at one time or 
another in this group of seven were historical characters, and 
almost all, like Solon, lived in the sixth century B.C. The 
wisdom for which they were celebrated was the wisdom of men of 
affairs who were experienced in the ways of the world and in the 
fortunes of men. They were not supposed to be gifted with the 
mysterious lore of the sage. None but Solon was the author of 
any literary works. ^ Almost all took an active part in public 
life and were benefactors of their countries. Their wisdom was 
supposed to have found expression in the pithy maxims 
which were attributed to them and of which considerable col- 
lections were made. The most famous of these maxims were : 

yvoj^t aavTov ] jjltjSIv dyav ', fierpov apLdrov ; eyym irapa 8' ara. A col- 
lect ion of them was made by Demetrius of Phalerum, and 
many have been preserved in Diogenes Laertius and other writers. 
Indeed, it has been suggested^ that the conception of a group of 
seven wise men may have had its origin in such a collection, 

1 For tlie Seven Wise Men see Zeller, Phil, der (iriech., vol. I, 5. Aiifl., 
pp. 110 If. ; Wulf (1805); Meyer (18'.);1 p. 717) ; Heloch (IIHS, pp. 352-300). 
'^ rrotaij. 343. =' Ililler (1878). 

4 ('hrist, Cr'e.sr/i. d. yriech. Literatur, 3. Aufi. 1890, Munich, p. 133. 



RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 23 

containing the maxims grouped uncier seven names. This is 
only a conjecture. But at any rate the famiUar maxims served 
to give substance to the conception. Socrates speaks with ap- 
proval of the laconic brevity of these utterances, in which were 
summed up the results of long experience and profound observa- 
tion. Undoubtedly in attributing these proverbs to Seven Wise 
Men the Greeks were only following their unfailing instinct of 
searching for some definite personal author for every feature of 
their civilization. The Seven Wise Men were men of real dis- 
tinction and ability who lived in the sixth century; the prov- 
erbs and maxims were well known principles of conduct in the 
Greek world : legend united the two and made the Wise Men the 
authors of the proverbs. 

When once the conception of the Seven had been formed, 
legend was soon busy decking it out with circumstantial details. 
The Seven were soon thought of as exact contemporaries and 
personal friends ; banquets were described at which they met 
and conversed with the wit and sagacity which was to be expected 
of them ; ^ they were the guests of foreign kings and in their in- 
terviews with them exhibited the superior intelligence of the 
Greeks ; a golden tripod was offered as prize to the wisest among 
them, and after each had modestly declined it in turn, they 
united in offering it to Apollo himself at Delphi ; they also made 
an offering to Apollo of the maxims which they had composed, 
inscribing them on the temple at Delphi. Besides these fables 
in which they all had a share, each individual had a legend of his 
own which credited him with many clever deeds and sayings. 
The first book of Diogenes Laertius' Lives of the Philosophers 
contains biographies of eleven men whose names appear in the 
lists of Wise Men. 

Legends cluster thick about the name of Solon, as a member 
of this illustrious group. He, too, rejected the tripod and refused 
1 Cf. especially Plutarch's Convivium Septem Sapientium. 



24 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

to admit that he was the wisest of men ; he feasted with the others 
and contributed his share of wisdom to the conversation ; he 
is credited with the authorship of many clever moral sayings. 
But besides these there are certain legends which are told of 
liiiii in particular which deserve a word of consideration. 

The most famous story about Solon relates to his interview 
with Croesus, king of Lydia.^ We are told that Solon visited the 
Lydian court, and that Croesus tried to dazzle him with the 
splendor of his riches. Asking Solon whom he considered the 
happiest man in the world, Croesus expected him to answer that 
the king of Lydia was the happiest. But Solon mentioned the 
names of three unknown Greeks, two Argives and an Athenian, 
who were already dead, and told of the noble manner of their 
death. Upon this, Croesus became angry and asked if he was not 
himself to be reckoned as one of the happiest of men. Solon 
replied tluit no man can be called happy until he has lived his 
life through without disaster. Thereupon Croesus dismissed 
him with scorn and indignation. But in later 3-ears, when his 
kingdom had been conquered by the Persian Cyrus, and he was 
himself about to be burned on the pyre, the words of Solon came 
again to his mind, and he called on his name three times in a loud 
voice. When Cyru^ heard these cries and learned the cause, he 
was so much impressed with the wisdom of Solon and so strongly 
reminded of the uncertainty of his own fortunes that he spared 
the Ufe of Croesus and made him his friend and counselor. 

This tale was told again and again by ancient writers. The 
earliest v(M-sion we have is found in the first book of Herodotus,^ 
who narrates the events with all the art of the prince of story- 
tellers. He has so expanded and embellished it, and imparted 
to it so great a moral dignity, that it has become one of the best- 
known and most admired portions of his whole work. The 
story appears again, also well told, both in Diodorus and in 

1 On Solon and Croesus see Busolt (1895, p. 300). ^ i 29-34. 



RECORD OF SOLON IN ANTIQUITY 25 

Plutarch,^ and is briefly alluded to by Diogenes Laertius, who 
refrains from telling it at length because, as he says, it is so 
hackneyed (ra Opvkovfxcva) . 

The truth of the story was doubted even in ancient times. 
Plutarch introduces his narrative with a remarkable statement 
in which he mentions these doubts, and which throws much light 
at the same time on his critical judgment in matters of historical 
accuracy. He says : ^ 

As for his [Solon's] interview with Croesus, some think to prove 
by chronology that it is fictitious. But when a story is so famous and 
so well-attested, and, what is more to the point, when it comports so well 
with the character of Solon, and is so worthy of his magnanimity and 
wisdom, I do not propose to reject it out of deference to any chronological 
canons, so called, which thousands are to this day revising, without being 
able to bring their contradictions into any general agreement. 

Now the chronological objections are serious, but not ab- 
solutely insuperable. Croesus came to the throne about the year 
555. Solon's death is generally fixed at about 559, but there is 
nothing to prove that he did not live for many years after this 
date. The interview, therefore, might have been held soon after 
Croesus' accession. But the really insuperable objections to our 
acceptance of the story are : first, that there is no known way 
in which it could have been transmitted ; second, that the legen- 
dary character of it is unmistakable ; and, third, that it forms a 
part of the larger tradition of the Seven Wise Men with its many 
unquestionably legendary interviews. 

Plutarch is right when he says that the story comports well 
with the character of Solon. This must be said to the credit of 
the authors of the legend ; but it does not, of course, prove its 
truth. There are two moral principles by which Solon is moved 
in the legend : one is scorn and contempt of great riches ; the 
other is the belief that human happiness cannot be judged till the 

1 Diodorus ix 2 and 26 f . ; Plut. Sol. xxvii f . ; Diog. Laert. i 50. 

2 Plut. Sol. xxvii (Perrin's translation). 



2G SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

will of the gods has been fulfilled to the end. There is abundant 
evidence even in the few remaining poems of Solon that these 
two principles were strongly characteristic of his thought. Ex- 
pressions of the former are to be found scattered all through the 
fragments. The latter is enunciated in the noble poetry of his 
longest elegy. 

Good stories are also told of interviews, equally legendary 
in character, between Solon and three other men who were in- 
cluded in various lists of the Seven Wise Men : Anacharsis the 
Scythian, Thales of Miletus, and the mysterious Epimenides 
of Crete. ^ In each of these cases it is the wit and shrewdness, 
not of Solon, but of his interlocutor, which is displayed. The 
stories probably belonged originally to the legends of the three 
other men, and Solon was introduced into them because of the 
association of the Seven. 

Such, then, was the reputation of Solon in the ancient world, 
and such was the written record of his career. It is apparent that 
we must stand incredulous before many stories which are told of 
his exploits. As stories they have their value ; but they will 
not be retold here. We must be willing to sacrifice the picturesque 
and romantic inventions which add so much to the definiteness 
and charm of Plutarch's biography. We must keep our minds 
unflinchingly on the ultimate sources of information which have 
already been described, and reject all that cannot be traced to 
them. But when all subtractions have been made, there still 
remains for us a noble career which is clear at least in its main 
outlines, and a personality of sterling worth. Fortunately not 
a little of sound fact stands the test, and we need not despair of 
knowing Solon in some sort even as he was. 

1 Anacharsis : Plut. Sol. v ; Diog. Laert. i 101 f . Thales : Plut. Sol vi. 
Epimenides : Plut. Sol. xii ; Diog. Laert. i 109 ff. 



CHAPTER II 
BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 

1 

No precise date is known for any event in Solon's life. Even 
the year of his archonship cannot be fixed, and we can only say 
that it fell within the period between 594 and 590 b.c.^ There 
is no statement in the ancient authorities concerning the date of 
his birth ; about the date of his death, there are conflicting asser- 
tions. According to one of these, he died in the archonship of 
Hegestratus, which was in the year 560-559 ; according to another, 
he was eighty years of age at the time of his death. ^ Neither of 
these statements can be accepted as certainly true ; they were 
probably based upon chronological calculations of a sort which are 
not to be trusted. But if we take them for what they are worth, 
we find that the year of his birth would be 640-639. In this case 
he would have been somewhere between forty-five and fifty years 
of age at the time of his archonship — just the period of life at 
which perhaps men would have been most willing to entrust to 
him grave public responsiblities, though he might well have held 
the office ten years earlier or ten years later. But we shall not 
be far wrong if we think of the life of Solon as occupying the 
greater part of the second half of the seventh century b.c. and the 
greater part of the first half of the sixth century and bisected ap- 
proximately by the year 600. 

That Solon was an Athenian by birth we should not think of 

1 See Appendix 2. 

2 Archonship of Hegestratus : Phanias ap. Plut. Sol. xxxii 3. Eighty years 
of age : Diog. Laert. i 62. 

27 



28 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

doubting if we did not discover . that he is twice called a Sala- 
niinian.^ But we must regard this as an error when we recall 
his own words, — ''May I be no longer an Athenian," in the poem 
entitled ''Salamis."- The error was probably due to the renown 
of Solon's leadership in the Athenian conquest of the neighboring 
island, in connection with which this very poem was composed. It 
is even possible that Diodorus and Diogenes were not really in 
error, but were only applying the name Salaminius to Solon as 
the Roman Scipio was called Africanus. 

Let us stop to consider for a moment what it meant to be an 
Athenian at the dawn of the sixth century b.c.^ The name of 
Athens rouses in the mind so many memories of the glories of 
her prime, and the sixth centurj^ is an epoch about which our 
recollections are so vague and insubstantial, that we are in danger 
of holding a false conception of the Athens in which Solon lived. 
Almost all the achievements to which Athens owes her fame 
still lay far below the horizon of the future. The brilliant develop- 
ment under the rule of Pisistratus, the principle of democracy, 
the deathless glory of the Persian wars, the growth of empire, 
the white heat of genius during the long war with Sparta, the mellow 
age of philosophy, — men could not even have dreamed of these 
wonders in the rocky land of Attica at the beginning of the sixth 
century. The old fortress of the Acropolis was not yet crowned 
with the noble buildings which to our eyes form the chief feature 
of the Attic scene. Art and literature were still unknown. Solon 
himself was the first of Attic poets, and was to have no notable 
successor for fifty years and more. Sculpture was still in a rude 
stage of advancement. Probably even the primitive statues 
which were overthrown by the Persians and which have been 
discovered in the debris of the Acropolis were still unwrought. 

1 Diod. ix 1 ; Diog. Laert. i 45. Elsewhere always an Athenian. 

2 xxxiv. 

3 For early social and economic conditions in Athens see especially Wil- 
brandt (18i)8) and De Sanctis (1912). 



BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 29 

The painted pottery, found in the graves of this early period, has 
as yet Uttle promise of the exquisite art of the future. All the 
glories which the Athenians of a later time pointed to with pride 
and we contemplate with admiration did not yet exist as an in- 
centive to loyal emulation. 1 

One of the most signal characteristics of Athens throughout 
the sixth century, as contrasted with the fifth, is her inland posi- 
tion. Themistocles and Pericles made Athens an island state, 
facing the sea and depending for her prestige and for her very 
existence upon sea-borne commerce and naval defense. In the 
sixth century Athens was only just beginning to be aware of this 
mighty neighbor and ally, waiting just off her coasts. Her people 
were mostly occupied with internal affairs. The social institu- 
tions which are rooted in agricultural life still prevailed. Land- 
holders were the dominant class in the community. There were 
nobles with hereditary estates, peasants and serfs with no estates 
at all. Men were bound together by the religious bonds of clan 
and family. Not only their livelihood, but their religion and 
their habits of life were drawn from the soil. In later times, it 
was the sea that fashioned men's lives and habits ; and since no 
individual can own a portion of the high seas, there emerged an 
equality of opportunity in industry and commerce which tended 
to break down the feudal distinctions between landlords and 
landless folk, between nobles and commons. This change had 
begun in Solon's time. Men whose wealth consisted of money 

1 Wilamowitz (189.3, II, 60) : "aber ganz abgesehen von dem formalen stu- 
dium, das seine gedichte zur voraussetzung haben, hat er sein ganzes denken und 
empfinden ionisch machen mlissen, menschlich, modern fiir seine zeit. halten 
wir doch die attischen werke etwa der gleichen periode neben ihn : wie gross ist 
der abstand. die kostliche darstellungsfreude mit der der bildner des Typhon- 
giebels seine scheusale in aller derbheit aus seinem weichen stein schnitzt, das 
ist das alte Athen, dasselbe, das ein paar generationen frtiher leiclienziige und 
seeschlachten mit kindlichen mitteln auf die tonkriige pinselte, ungeschlacht 
autochthonisch, aber mit acht attischer ivapyeia.'''' One should not forget, liow- 
ever, that sculpture and painting were arts of a much slower growth in Greece 
than poetry ; and the real state of culture in Athens might be measured by Solon's 
poetry as well perhaps as by the Typhon pediment. 



30 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

accumulated in foreign trade began to take their places by the 
side of the men whose wealth was in land. But the new source 
of wealth was not yet open to any but the old landed nobility 
who had the means for new enterprise. Such changes as these 
are of slow growth, and we must not think that there was at any 
time a conscious transition from the old order to the new, at 
least until Themistocles built the long walls. Roughly speaking, 
the age of Solon was characterized by the old order, the age of 
Pericles by the new. 

Athens, however, was not shut off from contact with the out- 
side world. There is evidence that during this period she was 
adopting some of the customs of the Ionian Greeks who dwelt in 
Asia. The ancient dress of Attica was discarded for the Ionian 
fashion ; the Ionian practice of cremating the dead was taking 
its place beside the old Attic custom of burial ; a knowledge of 
the Ionian mythological epic is revealed in some of the pictures 
painted on Attic pottery. Trade, too, was carried on with other 
communities. Fragments of early Athenian pottery have been 
found in Cyprus and as far west as Etruria ; and on the Acropolis 
there have been discovered broken bits of vessels which had been 
made in Crete or at Naucratis in Egj^pt. 

In that far-off day the city which was later to be the school 
of Hellas and the chief city of Greece in art and letters, in in- 
dustry and commerce, was a place of little account in the world. 
The main currents of Hellenic life did not flow through Attica. 
The focus of Hellenic life was across the Aegean Sea. Miletus 
was the greatest city of the Greek world. Her close rivals were 
Samos, Ephesus, Smyrna, and other cities whose names are less 
well known to-day, lusty champions of the Greek spirit, not yet 
enervated and corrupted by the laxity of the Orient. Ionia 
was the first school of Hellas. Even on the western side of the 
Aegean there were many cities more notable than Athens : Corinth 
on tlic isthmus; Chalcis and Eretria on the island of Euboea; 



BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 31 

Megara, which Athens later came to despise ; and Aegina, whose 
proud Dorian lords were in the end forced to bend to Athens. 
These were the cities which had played a part in the vast projects 
of colonization which marked the eighth and seventh centuries. 
They had established flourishing outposts of Greek civilization 
from the Black Sea to Spain and from Thrace to the northern 
coast of Africa. Athens had not a single colony. Athenian mer- 
chants made use of money, the wonderful invention of the age ; 
but they used the coinage of other cities. Athens probably 
minted no coins of her own before the time of Solon. 

It is not difficult to discover what characteristics would be 
absent in a true portrait of Athens at the beginning of the sixth 
century. They are, in point of fact, generally identical with all 
the notable features of the more prominent Greek communities 
of the same epoch and of Athens herself at the period of her great- 
ness. But though we recognize that these characteristics must 
be eliminated, it is not easy to form and preserve a true concep- 
tion of what Athens actually was. There is little that is positive 
to put in the place of what we know we must omit. If we try 
to create a picture of Attica and of the people who dwelt there 
as they appeared to the eyes of Solon, we find that material is 
almost wholly lacking. There are many scattered scraps of in- 
formation concerning the religious, social, and political institu- 
tions of early Athens ; but they cannot be united into any com- 
prehensive picture of the city's life. We know that the scattered 
villages of the land were already associated together in that re- 
markable community which recognized all residents of Attica 
as Athenians. The people who lived about the Acropolis were 
not more truly Athenians than those who dwelt in the mountains 
or along the sea or farmed the more fertile valleys. The city of 
Athens did not dominate Attica, but all Attica was Athens. This 
was a momentous circumstance for the development of the state ; 
and though the cit}^ of Athens never spread beyond the bounds of 



32 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Attica, yet this political organization was as significant for Athens 
herself as a similar organization was for the city of Rome, which 
ultimately became coterminous with the Roman empire. In 
this larger community of Athens, Eleusis also already formed a 
part. This little village which lay beyond the low range of hills 
to the west of the Acropolis had already been incorporated into 
the Athenian state, bringing to the common life of Athenians 
participation in the noble religious usages and ideas which there 
had their home. 

Solon himself, in the longest of his extant poems, gives us an 
account of the principal occupations of the men of his time. He 
shows us the trader, the husbandman, and the artisan ; the min- 
strel, the prophet, and the physician. A busy, bustling world 
it seemed to him, in which all were working bhndly with little 
thought of the future. Money-making, he tells us, filled men's 
minds; and in his day a deep social and economic unrest per- 
vaded society, as a result of the unequal distribution of wealth. 
Society fell into two conflicting classes : the one was composed of 
the ''best" people (apto-rot), by which were meant the people of 
wealth and noble birth ; the other consisted of the folk at large 
(&7/xos). Political power lay entirely in the hands of the former 
class, and the magistrates were chosen only from their number. 
The restlessness, however, of the lower classes seems to have 
been due not so much to political inequality as to cruel economic 
conditions. Of all this we shall learn more later, because it was 
to remedy the disorder that Solon was chosen to the archonship. 
But since the disorder must have been long in growing, it is neces- 
sary that we should glance thus for a moment at the state of the 
world in which Solon lived. 

2 

If now we return to Solon, we may perhaps comprehend some- 
thing of the significance of the two facts about him which have 
already been presented. He was an Athenian whose years of 



BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 33 

maturity fell in the first half of the sixth century. But what was 
his position in this old feudal society of Athens which was slowly 
outgrowing its ancient molds? What was his family, and what 
were the formative influences of his early life? There will be 
no temptation to protract the story of his childhood and his 
youth in the somwhat pointless manner which is generally in- 
evitable in the biographies of men about whom much is known. 
Little is told us about this period in his life ; and even this is 
open to question because we cannot be sure that it rests upon 
secure evidence. But there are some things of which we can 
be sure, and fortunately they are things of whose importance 
we shall be convinced when we come to the principal work of 
his life. 

The name of Solon's father, we are told/ was Execestides. 
The authorities all agree in this, with one exception : a certain 
Philocles, otherwise unknown, is reported by Plutarch ^ as giving 
the name Euphorion for Solon's father. But Plutarch himself 
believed Execestides to be the correct name. The name of 
Solon's mother is unknown ; according to Heracleides Ponticus,^ 
who probably had no means of knowing anything about it, she 
was a cousin of the mother of Pisistratus. 

In any case Solon was of noble birth. His father was sup- 
posed to be descended from Codrus, the early king of Athens, 
or even from Neleus and Poseidon.^ But this does not enable 
us to decide which of the great Athenian families Solon belonged 
to, even if we admit the truth of the tradition, because several 
families claimed descent from Poseidon through the mythical 
line of Neleus, Melanthus, and Codrus. We may be fairly cer- 
tain, however, on other grounds, that Solon was a member of 
the aristocracy. He was later chosen archon, and in a day 

1 Diod. ix 1 ; Plut. Sol i ; Diog. Laert. i 45 ; Schol. Plat. Bep. x 599e ; 
Schol. Dem. xlv 64. 

2 Sol. 1. 3 Ap. Plut. Sol. i. 

4 Plut. Sol. i ; Diog. Laert. iii 1 ; Vita Platonis, ed. Westermann, p. 396. 



34 



SOLON THE ATHENIAN 



when only men of noble birth could fill this office it is not likely 
that he would have been elected if he had not possessed this 
qualification.^ 

If, in the eyes of the Greeks, the ancestors of Execestides 
were illustrious, there were reckoned among his descendants 
personages whom the modern world would deem more illustrious 
still. Plato himself and the notorious Critias, his mother's uncle, 
were supposed to be the descendants of Dropides, the brother of 
Solon. Socrates says, in the Charmides of Plato,^ that Charmides 
and Critias inherit gifts of poetry and philosophy from Solon; 
and Plutarch also alludes to the kinship between Solon and Plato.^ 
The genealogy is given as follows : ^ 

Execestides 

I 



I 
Solon 



Dropides 

Critias 

Callaeschrus 



Glauco 



Critias 
(one of the Thirty) 



Charraide? 



Perictione = Aristo 
Plato 



Unfortunately there are two flaws in this genealogy : in the first 
place, there must be at least two more generations between the 
oligarch Critias and Execestides the father of Solon ; and in the 
second place, it is not certain that Solon had a brother named 

1 At this time the archons were chosen dpiaTivb-qv koI wXovTivSrjv (Const, of 
Ath. iii 1). 

2 l.'SGa. 3 Sol. xxxii. 

4 I)io<j;. Lacrt. iii 1. Cf. also Vita Platonis, ed. Westermann, p. 388. 
Accordiiit; to Olympiodorus (Vit. Plat.., p. 1), it was Ariston, the father of 
Plato, who was (lescended from Solon. In the Critias of Plato (113 a) Critias 
says that his i^rcat-^i^randfather Dropides possessed a manuscript which had 
belonged to Solon. 



BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 35 

Dropides.^ Plato ^ makes Critias say that Solon was a relative and 
close friend of his own great-grandfather Dropides, and we still 
have a couplet^ addressed by Solon to Critias, the son of Dropides, 
bidding him follow the counsel of his father. We further know 
that Dropides was the name of one of the archons who held office 
within a few years after Solon > Beyond this we have no definite 
information. One would be glad to know for certain that the 
blood of Solon flowed in the veins of Plato, but the evidence is 
too scanty to support the belief. It matters very little for a true 
understanding of the life of Solon, whether the belief in the re- 
lationship between Solon and Plato is true or false. But the 
fancy of the modern reader is stirred more by the kinship between 
Solon and a person so illustrious as Plato than by his descent from 
a mythical Poseidon and a mythical Codrus. Yet the influence 
upon Solon's own life and thought which was exercised by a 
belief in his royal descent and his relation to the royal house must 
have been of no little significance. 

We do not find that any Athenian ever claimed descent di- 
rectly from Solon, nor is there any statement recorded that he 
was ever married. Plutarch does indeed tell a story about an 
interview between him and the philosopher Thales,^ in which 
Thales, to point a moral, pretends to have heard of the death of 
Solon's son in Athens. But the story is quite unhistorical, and 
the son is undoubtedly a fictitious person. 

Though Solon was of noble birth, his father, according to Plu- 
tarch,® was possessed of only moderate means. Aristotle tells us/ 

1 Busolt (1895, p. 255) says Dropides was not a brother of Solon. It is 
hardly a matter about which one can be so positive. Cf. also xxxix, Solon's 
warning to Critias, the son of Dropides. 

2 Timaeus 20 e. 3 xxxix. 

4 Cf. Wilamowitz (1893, I, 7, footnote 9): " A/owtti'St/s, Ss /xera SoXwm ' Adrj- 
valoLs 9jp^€P bei Philostratos vit. soph, i 16 wird dagegen mit zu scharfer interpre- 
tation auf das nachste jahr nach Solon bezogen. es reicht vollkommen hin, dass 
der name irgendwo bald nach Solon in der liste stand, sonst miisste man wol 
gar ^op/xiwv fiera SoXwm dp^as schol. Ar. Fried. 347 ebenso fassen." 

5 Plut. Sol. vi. 6 piut. Sol. i. 7 Const, of Ath. v. 



36 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

in almost the same words that are used by Plutarch in his state- 
ment about the father, that Solon himself belonged to the middle 
class in point of wealth. It is more likely that there was evidence 
in Solon's poems concerning his own station in life than that 
there was evidence about his father, and we must regard Plu- 
tarch's statement rather as an inference from the prevailing view 
about Solon himself. 

It appears that early in life Solon embarked in commerce. 
He was forced to this, according to Plutarch, ^ by the impaired 
state of the family fortune, which had been brought about by the 
excessive generosity of his father : belonging to a family which 
was accustomed to help others, he was unwilling, when he was in 
financial straits, to ask aid of his friends, who would have been 
glad to render it to him. Others found the motive for his voyages 
in his desire to acquire learning and experience rather than to 
make money. Obviously both these excuses were offered to 
save the reputation of Solon from the stain of trade. Plutarch 
goes to the trouble of explaining at considerable length that in 
earlier times trade brought with it no social inferiority. But 
whatever the reasons may have been, the fact may be accepted 
as true even though no direct evidence can be quoted in support 
of it. In the first place, a thing which must be apologized for 
is not likely to be invented ; Solon probably revealed his business 
experience more or less explicitly in his own verse. Indeed, in 
the fragments that remain he shows an acquaintance with eco- 
nomic affairs which may well have been drawn from his own ex- 
perience : he had a business man's understanding of things. 
Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that if Solon had not gone 
abroad into the wider air of the Greek world, he would have at- 
tained to the breadth of view and the sympathetic comprehension 
which characterize his public career. 

Whither was he carried by his commercial ventures? At 
1 Pint. Sol. ii. 



BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 37 

this period Athens had begun to trade not only with the neigh- 
boring coasts and islands of Greece, but also with Asia Minor 
and the Pontus, with Crete, Cyprus, and Egypt, and with Sicily 
and Italy in the west. It is impossible to say certainly whether 
Solon made his way to all or any of these regions. But it seems 
altogether probable that he should have been often in Ionia and 
for somewhat prolonged periods. This assumption is almost 
necessary in order to explain his ability to use the Ionic language 
and the elegiac verse of Ionia as his natural medium of expression. 
Solon must have carried many a cargo of oil or pottery from his 
own rocky Attica to the wealthy cities across the Aegean, and in 
spite of his love for his own native land {Trpea-pvTo.r'qv yaXav 
'laovtas) 1 he must have been charmed by the brilliant society 
which he found in Asia. It was here that he learned the pleasures 
of Aphrodite, Dionysus, and the Muses, whose attractions he 
frankly acknowledged. ^ He may have been tempted into luxury 
and prodigality, as Plutarch supposed when he offered in excuse 
for such habits the trials and dangers of his mercantile career. 

There must have been some years of this wild and merry life. 
Good songs, good wine, and a lass in every port lightened the 
toil of the sea. But it was a good school for Solon. He learned 
to know men as they lived outside the limits of the society of the 
best Athenian families ; he learned self-reliance, resourcefulness, 
and courage; his natural instinct for poetical art was developed 
by contact with the refinement of the east. 

It is clear that he did not grow rich through trade. No doubt 
he provided himself with a competence. But there were two things 
he preferred to money : one, as we have seen, was the good things 
that money can buy, the other his own personal worth (a/aeri}), 
which, he says himself, he would not sell for any amount of money .^ 
Speaking of the time when Solon became archon, Aristotle says* 

1 iii. 2 xxviii. 3 xvi and xvii. 

4 Const, of Ath. V. Cf. also Arist. Pol. vi (iv) 11, 1296 a, 19, where Aris- 
totle says again that Solon belonged to the class of yuecroi iroXTrai, and refers to 
his poems in proof of the fact. 



38 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

that by birth and reputation he ranked among the highest 
in the city, but that his hmited means and his manner of hfe 
placed him in the middle class. And yet in order to be eligible 
to this office, the law required that he should be sufficiently 
well off to claim a place in the census of the wealthiest class in 
Athens.^ 

Whether he was in fact rich or poor, he showed himself capable 
of adopting the views of a true moderate as thoroughly as if he 
had been born to that class.^ His conviction that the love of 
money is the root of all evil, appears again and again in fragments 
of poems which must have been written before his archonship 
but after he had had considerable experience of the world. ^ He 
believed at this time that the rich men of Athens were entirely 
responsible for the civil disorder which was yearly growing more 
threatening. Together with his condemnation of the rich went a 
sympathetic recognition of the hardships of the poor.'^ He reveals 
himself in the character of an ardent social reformer, outraged 
and shocked by the heartless excesses of the moneyed class, stirred 
with pity and commiseration for the oppressed. Fortunately 
the time was to come when he could act upon his generous im- 
pulses and bring relief where relief was needed ; unfortunately 
he was also to suffer disillusionment and learn that if the rich are 
greedy and rapacious, the poor, too, have their characteristic 
vices of ingratitude and discontent. 

1 Gilliard (1907, p. 153) says that the tradition which made Solon a man of 
moderate means rests upon his own poems (xvi, xvii, xl). The proof, ho main- 
tains, is not convincinjG^. The poems may not be a revelation of his personal 
position, but simply the expression of a fairly common thought, which is also 
found in Theoirnis. xvi and xvii are even attributed to Theognis (315 ff., 719 ff.). 

2 Cf. tlie whole passage in Aristotle's Politics just referred to. Solon could 
not strictly be numbered with the middle class which Aristotle believes should 
rule in an ideal state. True ixea-dTrjs implies the absence of inrepKaXSv, virepLa-xv- 
pov, vTrepevyeurj, and virepTrXovaLov. A man who was connected by blood with the 
noblest house in Athens could never satisfy the full definition. But Solon as an 
individual could choose liis own political ideals ; and, choosini? as he did the 
ideal of fxeadr-qs, he could not but be benefited by his sympathetic understanding 
of the evyevijs. 

3 ii'.f/., iv, v, xii, xvi, xvii, xl. •* xii. 



BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 39 



Our information concerning the first half of Solon's life is 
unfortunately very meager. We can only say that he must have 
risen steadily in popular esteem ; and it is much to be regretted 
that we cannot trace in detail the course of events through which 
he ultimately attained to a position of leadership in the state. 
We have seen that he gave serious thought to the problems by 
which Athens was beset, and fearlessly published his opinions in 
poetical form. But there must have been something more than 
thought, however sound, and something more than speech, 
however persuasive, to induce the Athenians, embittered as they 
were by party strife, ultimately to resign to him full control of 
their destinies. There must have been deeds as well as words. 
Things must have been done in the public service which won for 
Solon the admiration and confidence of his fellow-citizens. But 
there is only one such event of which we have any record, and this 
unfortunately is a matter which is involved in much obscurity. 
The evidence for it, as far as it went, was of the best, for it was 
provided by Solon's own poems, but it is difficult to determine 
how much of the information found in the ancient biographers 
was actually certified in this way. 

The event in question was the acquisition by Athens of the 
island of Salamis.^ This island lies in the Saronic Gulf close to 
the shore of Attica westward from Athens, shutting in the little 
bay of Eleusis. It thrusts itself out also as a menacing barrier 
toward Nisaea, the port of Megara. In the rivalry between 
Athens and Megara, which had probably begun long before this 
time and which was to continue intermittently for hundreds of 
years, the possession of Salamis was a matter of crucial impor- 
tance. The credit for the conquest was awarded to Solon by al- 
most the unanimous voice of antiquity. It was generally be- 
1 For a critical discussion of the affair of Salamis see Appendix 1. 



40 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

licved that he was the miUtary captain who carried the matter 
through to success. If this had been the fact, the exploit would 
certainly have done much to secure for Solon the affections of his 
fellow-countrymen. Like many another miUtary hero, he might 
have won political preferment through success on the field of 
battle. Although the name of Solon is inextricably involved in 
the affair of Salamis, all the records of his military participation 
are open to very grave suspicion. We must look elsewhere to 
discover his real part in the business. ^ 

The poem which offered the best evidence for the affair was 
the one entitled ''Salamis," which has already been mentioned.^ 
Plutarch narrates with some detail the circumstances of its com- 
position and of the results to which it led ; but though he might 
have learned from the poem something as to why it was written 
and what had happened before it was written, it is clear that it 
could have told him nothing of what happened after its publica- 
tion. If there is any truth in the latter part of the story, it must 
have come from some other source. In Plutarch's own words 
the story is this : ^ 

Once when the Athenians were tired out with a war which they were 
waging against the Megarians for the island of Salamis, they made a 
law that no one in future, on pain of death, should move, in writing or 
orally, that the city take up its contention for Salamis. Solon could not 
endure the disgrace of this, and when he saw that many of the young men 
wanted steps taken to bring on the war, but did not dare to take those 
steps themselves on account of the law, he pretended to be out of his 
head, and a report was given out to the city by his family that he showed 
signs of madness. He then secretly composed some elegiac verses, and 
after rehearsing them so that he could say them by rote, he sallied out into 
the market place of a sudden, with a cap upon his head. After a large 

1 Page 7. 

2 Plut. Sol. viii-x. Perrin's translation is quoted. For the poem and the 
circuinstances under which it was composed and recited, see also Dem. xix 252 
(and scliol.) ; ('icero de off. i 30, 108 ; Philodemus de mus. xx 18 ; Justinus ii 
7 f. ; Aristides Or. xxxvii, vol. 1, p. 708 and Or. xlvi, vol. 2, p. 361 Dindorf ; 
Polyaeiius Strateg. i 20 ; Paus. i 40, 5 ; Diog. Laert. i 40 ff. ; Porphyrins ad 
Ham. n. ii 183. 



BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 41 

crowd had collected there, he got upon the herald's stone and recited the 
poem which begins : 

"Behold in me a herald come from lovely Salamis, 
With a song in ordered verse instead of a harangue.** 
This poem is entitled "Salamis," and contains a hundred very graceful 
verses. When Solon had sung it, his friends began to praise him, and 
Pisistratus in particular m-ged and incited the citizens to obey his words. 
They therefore repealed the law and renewed the war, putting Solon in 
command of it. 

After this there follow two different accounts of the conduct 
of the campaign and the strategies that Solon employed to cap- 
ture the island.^ Both of these accounts are legendary. But 
in the second account there are two circumstances recorded 
which do not seem to form an integral part of the legend and which 
may have some historical value : the first of these is the state- 
ment that Solon had under his command five hundred volunteers 
and that a decree was passed that these should be supreme in the 
government of the island if they took it ; the second is the state- 
ment that near the spot where the Athenians effected a landing 
there was a temple of Eny alius which had been erected by Solon. 

What can we conclude from all this ? 

Clearly the possession of Salamis was at stake. Either Athens 
held the island and was in imminent danger of losing it ; or she 
had now given up, or was about to give up, the struggle. This 
is plainly revealed by the portions of the poem which are extant. 
We know that it was generally believed by Athenians of a later 
day that Salamis had belonged to them by right from the begin- 
ning of time, but had once or twice slipped from their power ; we 
also know that, as a matter of fact, Salamis had been originally 
independent and had come at different times under the domi- 
nation of Megara and Aegina.^ During the seventh century, 

1 For Plutarch's first account of the campaign, see also Aeneas Comm. 
Poliorc. iv 8 ff. ; Justinus ii 8 ; Frontinus Strateg. ii 9, 9 ; Polyaenus Strateg. i 
20. For his second account^ Aelian, V. H. vii 19. 

2Toepffer (1886, pp. 34 ff.)- Beloch, however, thinks (1913, p. 310) that 
before Solon's time Salamis must have belonged to Athens because the strong 



42 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Megara, which was then at the full tide of its prosperity as the 
mother of colonies, must have been in control of the island, which 
in the hands of another would have blocked her seaport. It is 
probable, therefore, that at the time of Solon's poem Salamis 
had never yet been in the possession of Athens ; but it must be 
recognized that it may have changed masters several times within 
the preceding decades. However this may be, the immediate 
situation which moved Solon to address his fellow-Athenians in 
verse was discreditable to Athens and not to be tolerated by 
patriotic citizens. Solon exhorts them to go and fight for the 
island. 

As for the circumstantial account of the composition and 
recitation of the poem, we must admit that it has a legendary 
aspect. The picturesque description of the dramatic scene in 
the market place is almost unquestionably fiction, suggested per- 
haps in the first instance by Solon's figure of the herald. But 
we should not forget the lost ninety-two lines of the poem. Plu- 
tarch may have found in them sure authority for some of his 
statements. The protracted war, the death penalty, the discon- 
tent of the younger men, the rashness or even insanity of Solon's 
defiance of the law may well have been facts, revealed more or 
less directly by the poem itself. At any rate, it is as uncritical 
to reject, as it is to accept, them unreservedly.^ 

expressions in the poem would be appropriate only if the island had been lost by 
Athens. HaXaixivacpeT Qv is meaningless, he argues, unless Athens had a claim to 
Salamis, and the claim could rest only on previous possession. But this word 
may mean with ec^ual propriety either that Athens, having once possessed 
Salamis, had now lost it, or that, never having actually possessed it, she was now 
disposed to resign her claims. It may be remarked here that Beloch's restoration 
of the history of Salamis throughout the sixth century, ingenious as it is, is 
nevertheless entirely conjectural. It assumes that we have a record of all the 
vicissitudes in the fortunes of the island, and tliat each piece of evidence refers 
to a separate event. All the allusions cannot b(i fitted into a convincing scheme: 
the fragments of the puzzle picture are too few, and they can be arranged in 
many ways. 

1 Demosthenes (xix 252) evidently had Solon's poem before his eyes, as we 
can see by his language. It is not unlikely, therefore, that the poem was his 
authority for the statements which he makes in the innnediate connection, viz., 



BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 43 

What happened after the pubUcation of the poem? Did 

Solon do anything more toward the success of the Athenians than 

• 

to rouse them to energetic activity ? In later times the renown of 
the achievement was almost universally attached to his name. 
We have already seen that he was called a Salaminian by Diodorus 
and Diogenes; there was also a tradition that his ashes were 
scattered over the island.^ We learn from the orator Aeschines 
that there was in his day a statue of Solon standing in the market 
place of the town of Salamis.^ It is conceivable that the glory 
for the whole affair might have been given to Solon simply on the 
strength of the poem. The poet Tyrtaeus was credited with the 
success of the Spartan arms in the wars against the Messenians 
because of the martial verse by which he stirred them to the fight. 
Solon's poem may have been such another trumpet call. But 
Tyrtaeus was only a poet and, according to the story, lame be- 
sides. Solon was more of a statesman than a poet; and it is 
probable that he did more than a poet could do. We can be sure, 
at any rate, that he did as much as Tyrtaeus ; but we should be 
surprised if his aid was limited to poetical exhortation. Let us 
see if we can discover a hint of anything else that he may have 
done to bring about the conquest of the island. 

At the time when the island of Salamis was slipping from her 
grasp, Athens, as we have seen, was suffering from a grave eco- 
nomic disorder, which was aggravated by social and political con- 
ditions which were crying for reform. Solon's thoughts were 
much occupied with the unhappy state of his country, as his 
poems show plainly enough, and he now saw her threatened with 
disgrace abroad as well as disaster at home. In this perplexing 
situation, the possibility occurred to him of neutralizing one evil 
with the other. Domestic troubles have been frequently remedied 

that Salamis had revolted from Athens, that Athens had set up the death penalty, 
that Solon had exposed himself to danger in composing and reciting the poem. 
1 Plut. Sol. xxxii ; Diog. Laert. i 62. 2 i 25. 



44 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

by a vigorous foreign policy. The energetic prosecution of the 
campaign against Salamis would turn men's minds from their 
anxieties at home, and unite the opposing parties, for a time at 
least, in one common struggle. To accomplish this result, it 
was necessary for him both to fire their enthusiasm and to hold 
out a reasonably sure promise of success. The first he accom- 
plished through the stirring exhortations of his poem, in which he 
appealed both to their sense of shame and to their longing for the 
island. The second he compassed by laying before them the pro- 
posal that five hundred volunteers should be called for, and that 
as a reward for their success the volunteers should be promised 
full economic and political freedom on the newly won soil. Rely- 
ing upon the longing for liberty which possessed the hearts of 
many Athenians who were little better than serfs of the rich, he 
believed that he could, at one and the same time, assure the con- 
quest of the island and draw off a little blood from the fevered body 
politic. The promise of political independence in the land which 
was to be won was the strongest inducement which he could offer 
to secure the support of the lower classes. Downtrodden as they 
were by the Athenian aristocracy, nothing would have stirred 
them as much as the vision of a life freed from the burdens and 
restrictions by which they were oppressed. Five hundred such 
men, stimulated at once by their loyalty to Athens and her gods 
and by the prospect of the immediate attainment of their politi- 
cal and economic aspirations, were sufficient to wrest the coveted 
island even from powerful Megara. By this single shrewd stroke, 
Solon could bring permanent relief to five hundred unhappy Athen- 
ians and their families, and so far lighten the pressure within the 
state as to postpone the conflict for some years. The plan was 
adopted and put into effect. Salamis was won, not so much by 
the prowess of the Athenian leaders, whoever they were, as by 
the irresistible elan of the men who were fighting for their liberty 
in a new land which should still be a piece of Attica. When all 



BEFORE THE ARCHONSHIP 45 

was over, Solon, who had been the soul of the enterprise, dedi- 
cated a precinct in Salamis to the god Enyalius as a thank-offering 
for the victory, and ever after he was thought of as the benefactor, 
not only of the Athenian state, but more especially of those 
Athenians who dwelt in Salamis. It was natural that legend, 
which is inevitably romantic, should invent tales of the military 
stratagems by which Solon won the island ; the clever stratagems 
of a statesman are not the stuff for popular stories. 

This conjectural restoration of the incident rests, after all, 
in spite of its plausibility, upon few and slender supports. It 
cannot be quite admitted within the bounds of sober history. 
But the nucleus of it, the fact that Solon was in some sort the 
hero of Salamis, is scarcely open to question. And this was no 
sUght thing in those days of small beginnings. It was a public 
service which stirred men's admiration, and which, added to their 
other knowledge of his character and capacity, made them ready 
a few years later to appoint him supreme dictator in Athens. 

We have no record of Solon's activities between the conquest 
of Salamis and his election to the archonship. It may be that 
the beginning of the Sacred War which the Amphictyonic League 
waged against the people of Cirrha fell in this interval ; if so, the 
part which Solon played in the counsels of the league is an indica- 
tion of the growing esteem in which he was held even beyond the 
confines of his native city. His part, however, in this war, which, 
whenever it may have begun, undoubtedly came to an end after 
his archonship, will be more appropriately discussed on a later 
occasion.^ 

1 See pp. 98 f . 



^^ 



CHAPTER III 
THE ARCHONSHIP 



At some time between 595 and 590 Solon was elected to the 
archonship.^ We are told that he was intrusted with extraor- 
dinary powers during his term of office : that he was made a 
mediator between the two hostile parties ; and that he was given 
special legislative powers, with liberty to remodel at his own pleas- 
ure the whole machinery of government. ^ Undoubtedly these 
statements are true ; that Solon actually addressed himself to 
these tasks and accomplished them with more or less success, 
we know from his own poems and from the common Athenian 
tradition, which in a matter of such importance was unquestion- 
ably sound. Furthermore, we can be equally sure that these 
high powers had been granted to him by an authority which he 
himself regarded as sovereign in the state : and this sovereign 
authority could only have been the joint will of all the conflicting 
elements. Otherwise he could have done his work only as a tyrant, 
and a tyrant he steadfastly refused to be, as his poems clearly 
show. 

That Solon should have been chosen to fill the office of archon 
requires no explanation. An archon was elected every year, and 
no extraordinary ability was required to win this civic honor. But 
the additional powers which were granted to him made him a 

1 For the date see Appendix 2. 

2 Const, of Ath. V 1, vi 1 ; Plut. Sol. xiv, xvi. Cf. also Pint. Amatorius 18, 
p. 7(58 o, and Praec. Ger. Keip. 10, p. 805 d. That the duty of revising the 
constitution was intrusted to him only after the Seisachtheia, as Plutarch 
represents, is probably an unwarranted assumption. 

43 



THE ARCHONSHIP 47' 

dictator plenipotentiary in the state. This was indeed an ex- 
traordinary thing ; it must be remembered that the Athenians 
in those turbulent days did not choose a man whose historical 
reputation was already secure. They would be guided in their 
choice only by the achievements of Solon in the past and his 
promise for the future. It is worth while to review those achieve- 
ments, and to weigh that promise. But first it will be necessary 
to consider just what the circumstances were which drove the 
Athenians to the perilous expedient of resigning their liberties to 
a temporar}^ autocrat. 

Fortunately we have some fairly precise information about the 
state of affairs in Athens at the moment when Solon entered upon 
his office.^ After what has been previously said, this will not be 
misunderstood to mean that we are in a position to command a 
comprehensive view of all aspects of the city's life. The greater 
part of the scene is dark. But some real illumination is thrown 
upon certain parts of it — and those, for our purpose, the most 
significant parts — by Solon's own poems. In some of the poems 
written before his archonship and in some written after, he has 
given reasonably clear indications of the abuses of the day, and 
it is not difficult to discern the conditions out of which these abuses 
grew.2 No doubt we should know more if we had more of the 
poems ; but even Aristotle and Plutarch, who had more, add little 
to what we can easily infer from the extant remains. 

The outstanding feature of the times was a bitter dissension 
between the rich and the poor. The population was sharply 
divided into two hostile groups. It would be misleading to call 
these groups parties, because there could have been nothing like 
genuine political rivalry between them, such as is implied by the 
word " parties " in the modern world. It cannot be supposed that 

1 For an admirable and thorough discussion of the social and economic dis- 
order in Athens and the curative measures adopted by Solon see Gilliard (1907"). 
Cf. also p. 28, footnote 3. 

2 iii-xii, xl. 



'48 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

the poor had united themselves even in the semblance of a labor 
party which could energetically and systematically push its claims 
in the struggle with the rich. It was one of Solon's chief claims 
to glory among the Athenians of a later day that he had been the 
first of the distinguished line of statesmen who had championed 
the rights of the people and resisted the rule of special privilege. 
There was certainly justice in this claim ; before Solon the lower 
classes in Athens could only have been helpless and inarticulate, 
lacking the means of either aggression or defense. 

But if the poor had nothing which may be properly called a 
political organization, they were nevertheless bound together by 
common suffering and oppression, and they were clearly and con- 
sciously opposed to the rich by whom they were oppressed. They 
were not moved to a desire for new things by theoretical propa- 
ganda and the requirements of abstract justice. Every man 
knew from his own misery that there was something wrong in 
the organization of society which must be put right.^ Men had 
suffered till they could endure no longer. They were ready to 
strike out blindly and fiercely against the thing that hurt them and 
destroy it. Revolution was at the door. We do not hear that 
the opposing parties had met in armed conflict. It seems to have 
been recognized, however, that affairs had come to such a pass 
that the only settlement would be found in a resort to force. 

Solon tells us plainly of the overt abuses in his own day.^ 
A large part of the soil of Attica had come into the possession, 
or at least under the control, of the rich ; many Athenians were 
suffering under a load of debt; some of these debtors, helpless 
to relieve themselves, had been forced into exile and had been 
living so long abroad that they had forgotten the good Attic 
speech ; others, free-born though they were, had become the slaves 
of their creditors or had sold their children as slaves ; and of these, 
many had been sold into slavery abroad and so were in the worst 
1 xii 27-30. 2 cf . especially ix, xii, xl. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 49 

case of all. Broadly speaking, the land and the greater part of 
its products belonged to the rich ; and the poor were constrained 
to toil for them as their slaves without mercy or redress. -Here 
were causes enough for bitterness and discontent. While the 
rich enjoyed their ease and all the luxuries and comforts that the 
times afforded, the poor were condemned to a life of hopeless 
drudgery at home or to that worst of evils in the ancient world, 
exile in a foreign land. 

The causes of revolution are always long and slow. We 
cannot hope to trace through the darkness of the centuries preced- 
ing the archonship of Solon the insensible movements of society 
that led to the crisis. It is probable that certain well known 
changes that had been taking place throughout the Greek world 
produced, when they came into contact with the old social order in 
Athens, the reaction which precipitated the appalling conditions 
which have been described. There is much to show that this 
old social order had resembled in a degree the feudal conditions 
of the Middle Ages. Wealth and power had belonged to the 
nobles or Eupatridae, and families of humbler birth were at- 
tached to their lords and bound to certain obligations of service.^ 
As long as the temper of the nobles is mild and that of the common 
people submissive, such a relation as this does not breed dis- 
content ; indeed the mutual advantages may be such as to make 
it desirable. But when the lords become arrogant and over- 
bearing, the lot of their vassals soon becomes hard. Solon has 
much to say of the pride and greed and arrogance of the upper 
classes in Athens.^ This change of temper, together with other 
changes in Athenian society, tending to destroy the old content- 



1 In later times the words eKTrjfjLopoL^ TreXdrat, and drjres were applied to men 
who occupied the position of vassals and serfs in early Athenian history ; but no 
definite information about them is available. For a discussion of the words see 
Busolt (1895, pp. 108-110) ; Gilliard (1907, pp. 92-97) ; De Sanctis (1912, pp. 
195 ff.) 

2 See iv, v, xii, xvii, xl. 



50 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

ment, were probably produced by the widely operative reagents 
that have just been alluded to. 

The general character of the seventh and sixth centuries in 
the history of Greece is well known. It was an age of coloniza- 
tion, of rapidly growing commerce, of sudden riches and sudden 
losses. The old traditional life of isolated Greek communities 
was undergoing a transformation : the old noble famiUes embarked 
on new enterprises of money making ; the lower classes saw op- 
portunities for advancement which did not depend on the owner- 
ship of the soil. The mass of the people began to be aware of 
hopes and possibilities which had never before entered their heads. 
The world was suddenly opened to them. A spirit of adventure, 
an eagerness for a larger and fuller life marked the whole age. One 
single, concrete thing had an incalculable influence in making 
over the world : it was at this time that coined money began to 
be used in Greece. Commerce demanded a medium of exchange, 
and money fostered commerce. One was impossible without 
the other. But the existence of money completely upset the old 
relations between men in single communities. In order to live to- 
gether without money, men must come very close to one another ; 
barter and exchange, whether of goods or of labor, is direct and 
personal. Money has the same value everywhere ; it may be 
earned in one place and spent in another. It is not necessary 
to tell the old familiar story. The fundamental transformation 
in human society wrought by the invention of money is suffi- 
ciently well known. 

With these general characteristics of the age in mind we can 
now see what probably took place in Athens during the seventh 
century. The new opportunities of trade and commerce were 
open first to the nobles because they alone held any considerable 
property ; they began to collect money ; payment in kind was 
no longer acceptable ; since money is the form of wealth which 
most quickly engenders avarice, the nobles became greedy and 



THE ARCHONSHIP 51 

avaricious. No distinction is made by Solon, or by Aristotle, 
between the noble and the rich, who are also called indifferently 
the few, the distinguished, or the powerful. Often enough, 
with a singular directness, but without any thought of moral dis- 
tinction, the upper classes are called the good, and the lower classes 
the bad ; but this habit of expression is common enough among 
the Greeks, who were never blind to the fact that high birth and 
wealth enable men to attain a higher standard of human worth 
than can be reached by those who are not blessed with these 
advantages. Meanwhile the lower classes had no money with 
which to pay; no longer able to fulfill their old obligations by 
payment in kind, they were forced to borrow ; men who held land 
were forced to give up part of their right to its products ; the 
only security which others could offer was their personal liberty 
or the liberty of members of their family. Once their liberty 
was forfeited, they were in danger of being sold abroad for money. 
Thus the old order was transformed merely by the conjunction 
of circumstances. 

Meanwhile political power and the administration of justice 
lay in the hands of the nobles. Aristocratic rule may have begun 
already to breed discontent ; now at any rate when the new abuses 
that afflicted the community could only be righted through the 
agency of law and government, the very part of the community 
which profited by the abuses held control of both. All Athenian 
magistrates, it is safe to say, were chosen from among the wealthy 
class. The laws which they administered were the unwritten 
laws of custom and precedent. What recourse had a poor man 
under these circumstances, now that the new, baleful influence 
of money had transmuted a benevolent aristocracy into a rapa- 
cious oligarchy ? Public property and even the sacred holdings of 
temples were not spared ; ^ and if men had the audacity to lay 
hands on such things as these, they would certainly have felt no 

1 xii 12 f . 



52 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

scruple in seizing upon the lands and the persons of poor debtors, 
to which they had a certain right according to the terms of custom 
and tradition. 

These were the deplorable conditions which compelled the 
Athenians to seek some radical remedy. Positive pressure came, 
of course, from the lower classes. It was they who demanded 
a change.^ But the upper classes, too, perceived the danger that 
threatened, and were themselves eager that peace and calm should 
be restored. Just what the demands of the lower classes were, 
we cannot say. Indeed, they were probably not formulated at 
all; or, if the vague dissatisfaction and distress came to some 
coherent expression, it was probably in the radical and revolu- 
tionary terms which are characteristic of such popular clamor. 
It appears that an equal distribution of the soil was talked of,^ 
and no doubt other short-sighted and impracticable schemes 
filled men's minds. But there seemed to be no escape from the 
irrepressible conflict. 



Such was the problem which Solon was called upon to solve. 
Both factions, divided in all else, were united in their belief that 
he alone could find a way.^ What was it that gave all Athenians 
such confidence in him alone? We have not been able to trace 
the steps by which he had risen to the position of the accepted 
statesman of the day. But we can discern three causes at least, 
which, though they may not have been the only ones, would at 
any rate have been sufficient to win for him the public confidence. 

In the first place, he occupied a unique position in his relation 
to the parties, having bonds of relationship with all the principal 
groups in the state. A member of one of the best families of 
Athens, he belonged indisputably to the highest social class ; 
he knew their ways and he understood their thoughts. Possess- 

1 iv. 2 viii 8f. 3 Const, of Ath. v 1 ; Plut. Sol. xiv. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 53 

ing no large estates, he was thrown by circumstances into associa- 
tion with the landless men in the community ; he appreciated 
their difficulties and sympathized with their aspirations. A 
successful trader and a traveler of wide experience, he had made 
himself one with the new industrial and commercial element in 
the population ; he saw the change which was inevitably coming 
in the constitution of Athenian society.^ Surely there were 
not many men in Athens who had enjoyed such opportunities 
for learning the temper of the people. All parties alike could 
trust him as one who knew them and could survey the problem 
from their point of view. The poor saw in him the champion 
of their liberties ; the rich believed that he would be the defender 
of their privileges — noblesse oblige. It is not likely that when 
through compromise Solon was made dictator by the united ac- 
tion of both parties, either party really thought of him as an im- 
partial administrator. In such cases neither party really desires 
a compromise ; in the present instance, we may be sure the lower 
classes fully expected a redistribution of the land, and the rich 
expected a preservation of the status quo with only slight modi- 
fication. ^ This is clear from the loudly expressed dissatisfaction 
on both sides which is echoed in the poems composed by Solon 
after his archonship.^ If either party had really believed that 
Solon was the inflexible mediator that he eventually showed him- 
self to be, he would never have been appointed to his high office. 
A compromise candidate is one whom each party thinks it can 
bend to its own uses. 

In the second place, he was the victor of Salamis. When in 

1 Lehmann-Haupt (1912, p. 17) observes : " Als Grosskaufmann von hoch- 
ster staatsmannischer Begabung und weitem Blicke ist er, als die Stunde rief, 
daran gegangen, Athen aus wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Noten zu befreien und 
durch den Handel auf den Weg der Grosse zu fiihren." Cf. also Lehmann- 
Haupt (1900, p. 638, footnote 1). This opinion, however, is not well supported, 
resting, as it does, mostly on the reform in the monetary system and the system 
of weights and measures which is attributed to Solon. See Appendix 5. 

2 Const, of Ath. xi 2 ; Plut. Sol. xvi 1. 3 vi-xi. 



54 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

the mind of the Athenian people factional disputes were mcrg:ed 
in the common emotion of patriotic devotion to the fatherland, 
their grateful loyalty naturally rested in him. He was in a cer- 
tain sense the national hero of the day. And not only this. 
There were good grounds for his popularity. If we have judged 
aright his conduct of the Salaminian affair, he had not only guided 
it to a successful conclusion, but in his settlement of the island 
he had shown wisdom and sagacity. We may well believe that 
there was much in what he had done to inspire confidence in his 
ability to handle the more difficult task of reconstituting Athenian 
society. 

Thirdly, Solon was a writer on public questions who had given 
expression to opinions which were acceptable to the people at 
large. Considerable fragments remain of the elegiac verse which 
he composed in the period before his archonship, and they are 
sufficient to give us a fair understanding of his political creed. ^ 
He denounces the greed of the rich, he sympathizes with the hard- 
ships of the poor; therefore, he is the accepted leader of the 
popular party, the first STy/otaywyos in the history of Athens. 
The policy, moreover, with which he proposes to correct the 
abuses of the day is far from being subversive and radical. It 
was a policy which the upper classes could readily subscribe to, 
particularly at a moment when some conciliation at least must 
be made to the restless masses. Solon did not propose to take 
away the property of the rich and give it to the poor ; he did not 
propose to throw open the magistracies of the city to the ple- 
beians ; he did not propose to throw down the social barriers in the 
community. The panacea which he offered to Athens was cwo/u,tr;, 
a beneficent reign of law, which should remove all causes for 
dissension and foster harmony and contentment. Obviously 
this was an ideal which all could acclaim. It might mean much 
or it might mean little. Both parties were wrong, as the event 

1 iv, V, xii, xl. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 55 

proved : Solon meant precisely what he said,^ and what he said 
was the wise utterance of a man whose view is not circumscribed 
by the wall which shuts in a party. But for the moment all were 
content, and Solon was intrusted with the destinies of the state. 

The influence of Solon's poetry is not to be regarded as in- 
significant. Ringing verse has great advantages over the sober 
pamphlet in stirring the emotions, and political action springs 
more often from emotion than from reason. We may well be- 
lieve that many a rousing couplet from Solon's elegies was re- 
peated in the market place and at the crossroads ; and the 
noble description which he gives of the ideal blessings of Euno- 
mia must have convinced many who were oppressed with the 
realities of life, that Solon was the man to bring the state into 
order. Furthermore, it appears that Solon had something of the 
gift — invaluable to politicians — of coining watchwords which 
like magnets drew to his cause the unsettled opinions of the 
community. Plutarch reports one such phrase, which, whether 
it is authentic or not, serves at any rate as an illustration : ^ 
"Equality breeds no war" {t6 la-ov TroXe^ov ov Trotet) — a stimu- 
lating sentiment, especially to unthinking persons, well adapted 
to serve as the nucleus for a political movement. That the 
phrase has no precise meaning does not diminish its value as a 
rallying cry. Plutarch himself observes, very neatly, that the 
two parties put different interpretations upon it, the rich think- 
ing that the equality was to be based on ability and worth, and 
the poor thinking it was to be based on measure and count. 

It would not be fair to conclude an estimate of the causes 
which led to the choice of Solon as the dictator of Athens without 
mentioning also the power of his personality. Certain qualities 
stand out as characteristic of the man, demonstrated both in his 
poetry and in the whole conduct of his life. Wisdom, surely, 
he possessed in full measure : geniality we can infer from the tone 

1 viii 6 f . ; cf . ix 15 ff. 2 piut. Sol. xiv 2. 



56 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

of his utterances and from the mellowing effects of travel and 
experience ; kindliness unquestionably is revealed at many points ; 
and best of all he was a man of unflinching integrity and loyalty. 
Such qualities as these, coupled with the savoir faire of a man of 
birth and breeding, must have had their effect upon the minds 
of Athenians. What they did not suspect was that he also pos- 
sessed an indomitable will and an unwavering purpose. They 
wanted a leader who should do what they individually thought 
was best for them ; they found a leader who did what he himself 
knew was best for them, without fear or favor. 



The extraordinary office which Solon was called upon to fill 
carried with it functions which had to be performed by some one 
in every Greek state at some point in its transition from aristocratic 
to democratic government. The readjustments throughout the 
Greek world which were made necessary by the rise of the lower 
classes and the growth of trade and industry, did not come about 
automatically, but generally required more or less violent proce- 
dure. In some cases a great lawgiver made over the machinery 
of government so that it would work under the new conditions; 
but in most cases the change came through the arbitrary assump- 
tion of power by some single individual who commanded the 
support of the commons because he overthrew the government of 
the aristocracy. Such a person, called by the Greeks a tyrant, 
made himself sole master of the state and administered the govern- 
ment at his own pleasure, maintaining his power till overthrown 
by force. His office was unconstitutional and he was himself 
an outlaw in the literal sense of the term. Actually the motives 
of the tyrant in setting himself against the established order of 
things were personal ambition and lust for power ; but he served 
at the same time, unconsciously, another purpose. He freed 
the common people from the domination of the hereditary aris- 



THE ARCHONSHIP 57 

tocracy, and, by making all citizens equal under his own despotic 
sway, prepared the people for the assumption of the sovereignty 
when the time came to cast off his yoke. Such tyrannies were 
of varying duration ; and they were of varying merit. Some 
tyrants acted like tyrants in the modern sense of the word ; 
others did much for the prosperity of their cities. Tyrants rose 
to power, here and there, in the Greek world throughout the 
course of Greek history. But it was in the seventh and sixth 
centuries, when tyrannies first appear, that they performed this 
special and peculiar function in the constitutional development 
of the Greek city-state. 

If ever a state was ripe for a tyranny, it was Athens at the 
beginning of the sixth century. Conditions had reached such a 
pass that no less heroic remedy, apparently, would suffice. Un- 
doubtedly the remedy would have been applied if Solon had not 
resolutely set himself against it. He could easily have put him- 
self at the head of either of the two opposing parties and won his 
way to a dominant position in the city. The lower classes fully 
believed that the mild policies which he publicly expressed were 
only a cloak to conceal his real ulterior purpose, and that he in- 
tended, when the fruit of his plans was ripe, to seize by a stroke 
of force the supreme power in the state. ^ Such action was eagerly 
awaited by the common people, who hoped to secure large advan- 
tage for themselves through the triumph of the man who they 
thought would give them all they wanted. He held within his grasp 
the opportunity that most men covet most. Another man, of less 
rigid principle, would have given the people their way, and al- 
lowed himself to be carried to a position of supremacy by the un- 
restrained violence of the mob. Plutarch reports ^ (and there may 
have been some authority for his statement in the lost poems), 
that even neutral persons, who belonged to neither of the two 
parties, felt that the peace and prosperity of the city could best 

1 viii, xxi, xxii. 2 piut. Sol. xiv 3. 



58 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

be secured if Solon became tyrant. Some even jeered at him for 
refusing so enviable a position.^ 

But Solon was inflexible. His political principles, resting 
upon Eunomia, were absolutely inconsistent with the lawless 
tyranny. He had confidence in the power of the people to adjust 
themselves to a lawful form of government which would provide 
for their perfect happiness and security. He would not yield 
to the temptation of personal advancement ; he remained stead- 
fastly loyal to the best interests of the state. He took more pride 
in his renunciation of the doubtful honor than he would have 
felt in the attainment of it.^ For this, Solon deserves the highest 
praise from all believers in democracy. He himself believed so 
firmly in the capacity of the people to govern themselves, if the 
obstructions to good government were removed, that he refused 
to undertake the government himself; yet he must have felt 
that he could guide the affairs of Athens well, if it had been best 
that any one but the Athenians should guide the affairs of Athens. 
The thing was thrust upon him which most men long to possess ; 
Athens besought him to be her ruler ; and he refused because he 
knew it was better for Athens that she should rule herself.^ 

Just when this demand was made that Solon should accept 
the tyranny, we do not know. It may have been before he was 
elected archon ; it may have been during his term of office ; it 
may have been when his legislation was complete. To judge 
from his own allusions to it in his poems, the people must have 

1 xxii. 2 viii, ix 20 ff., xi, xxi. 

3 Heloch (1912, p. 367) says: "Er hat es nicht c^ewagt (i.e., to make him- 
self tyrant) ; er wusste zii gut, dass ihm die unentbehrliche Grundlai^e felilte, 
ein fester inilitiirisclier Ruckhalt, uiul davSS er audi selbst nich der reehte Mann 
dazu war, den 'I'yrannen zu spielen." To this dei^radation of Solon's motives 
by the (ierman historian an effective reply may be found in the words of a dis- 
tin£2;uish(!d French Hellenist. vSolon may have been aware, says Croiset (1903, 
pp. 594, 595), of the danj^ers and deceptions incident to the tyranny ; but, he con- 
tinues, '' nous n'avons aucune raison pour ne pas croire qu'a cette sa.i?esse 
natnrello se soient associ6s les motifs 61ev6s (ju'il laisse deviner dans ses vers. II 
considenvit, la tyrannic comme une violence, et la violence lui rfipugnait, parce 
qu'il avait foi dans la justice et la liberty." 



THE ARCHONSHIP 59 

been very persistent; probably they long refused to take ''No" 
for an answer. But finally they became quiet and he was allowed 
to accomplish his task in his own way. 

He had refused to be tyrant, but in order to prevent civil war 
and restore quiet in the state, he needed temporarily the arbi- 
trary power of a tyrant. This he did not hesitate to assume. 
Having once accepted office at the hands of his fellow-citizens, 
he immediately showed his complete independence and his de- 
termination to carry out the measures which he conceived to be 
necessary for the relief of the situation. He exhibited no weak- 
ness ; he made no concessions to the powerful ; he was guilty of 
no truckling to his electors. He had been chosen mediator be- 
tween two hostile parties, and a mediator is expected by each 
party to champion its cause. This is what Solon undertook to 
do. He strove to defend each party from the vindictiveness of 
the other. In his own words, he cast his shield over both parties 
alike. ^ It was inevitable under these circumstances that each 
party should feel that it was getting only half the support of the 
man whom it had counted upon to be its champion. Neither 
party was satisfied. But Solon did not allow himself to be turned 
from his settled course. He fulfilled his promises, no more, no 
less ; he used such a measure of force as was necessary to support 
the dictates of justice ; he strove to give every man, high and low, 
his due. 2 He did not aim to cut a new constitution out of new 
cloth. He adhered to the old where the old was sound : he let 
well enough alone. But he endeavored to make the changes 
which were essential to the peace of Athens and the well-being 
of all the citizens.^ Such a plan, conceived and executed in a 
spirit of moderation and fair dealing, was not likely to please 
either the extreme left or the extreme right. He says himself 
he was like a wolf hemmed in by a pack of hounds.^ But he held 
true. He was as sure at the end as he was at the beginning that 
1 vi 5 1' 2 ix 15 ff. 3 vi. 4 ix 26 f . 



60 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

he had done the best thing for Athens, and he was proud of his 
unflagging resolution. 

Upon an examination of the reforms which Solon himself 
claims to have introduced, one is struck by a notable consistency 
in his policy. In certain of his earlier poems, as we have seen, 
he had put his finger on what he believed to be the chief vices of 
that society. Now, after his term of office was over, it was pre- 
cisely these vices which he claimed to have corrected. He knew 
from the first just what he intended to do. He asserts explicitly 
that he had fulfilled his promises.^ He may have been referring 
to definite promises, or he may have had in mind the well known 
views to which he had been giving public expression, probably 
for some years past. However this may be, it is certain that 
during his administration he did exactly the things which he had 
led the Athenians to expect he would do, the things which, he 
firmly believed, both before and after his archonship, were the 
things which above all others ought to be done. There was no 
reason for surprise or disappointment, on the part of the Athenians 
at any rate ; it was Solon himself who was both surprised and 
disappointed when the people received with dissatisfaction the very 
reforms which they had appointed him to carry out. 

Solon makes a double claim for the value of his reforms. He 
insists that he had accomphshed more good for the lower orders 
than they could have dared to hope for ; but at the same time he 
asserts with equal positiveness that he was acting in the interest 
of the upper classes.^ Such statements as these are susceptible 
of but one interpretation. Solon believed that the safety and 
happiness of each class lay, not in its own complete triumph over 
the other, but rather in a wisely adjusted social, political, and eco- 
nomic order which would assure to all men their full deserts. He was 
a statesman who was concerned for the good of all Athenians, not 
for the ascendancy of one group over another. He refused aUke 

1 viii6f. ; ix 15 f. ^ x. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 61 

to humiliate the nobles and to exalt unduly the common people.* 
Naturally, since the need for reform was due to the distresses of 
the common people, the measures which Solon actually adopted 
were taken in their interest. The complaint of the nobles, there- 
fore, was that he had done too much. The common people, on 
the other hand, were angry because he had not done more. In 
particular, they demanded a redistribution of the land. This ex- 
travagant demand may have taken shape in men's minds as a 
result of the positive but limited advantage which they had won 
through Solon's administration ; or it may have been an old cry 
which had been raised before his term of office and which they had 
fondly thought he would hear and answer. It is certain that 
Solon had never intended or promised to take away the land of 
the nobles and distribute it equally among the population. ^ No 
doubt his steadfast refusal to do this was one of the reasons why 
he claimed to have acted in the interest of the upper classes. But 
one cannot believe that this was the only reason. He must have 
been convinced in his own mind that the condition of the nobles 
would be altogether happier and more secure if the lower classes 
were peaceful and contented as a result of an equitable adminis- 
tration of fair and impartial laws. Evidently this ideal was too 
high for the heated partisans of the day, who, on both sides 
aUke, were too selfish and short-sighted to see its worth. 

4 

What, now, were the measures adopted in order to bring the 
community of Athenians into a state of order and contentment? 
Like a good physician, he understood that quick and powerful 
remedies were needed to cure the acute disorder from which 
Athens was suffering, and that when the crisis was past and con- 
valescence had begun, a sound regimen was required to safeguard 
the health which had been restored. The first of these require- 

1 vi. 2 viii. 



62 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

ments he met by issuing certain executive orders, which, however 
deeply they cut, the city had given him the power to enforce. 
Then, when these had been put into effect, he proceeded to draw 
up a body of written laws calculated to prevent the recurrence 
of so grave a situation in the future. The reforms which were 
secured by these two separate acts would be described to-day 
as social and economic, legal and constitutional ; but in the 
simpler organization of society which prevailed in the sixth cen- 
tury, such a classification as this would not have been thought of. 
To Solon and his fellow-Athenians no other classification would 
have been apparent than that which divided the reforms into 
temporary expedients and permanent regulations. We shall 
examine first the one and then the other. ^ 

Solon himself tells us of four things which he did to bring 
immediate relief to the oppressed classes : ^ he freed the land, he 
restored to their homes Athenians who had been sold into foreign 
slavery, he brought back those whom destitution had driven into 
exile, and he set at liberty those who were the slaves of Athenian 
masters. Freedom, plainly, was the dominant motive in his 
procedure, and we may be sure that the freedom which was granted 
by a moderate statesman like Solon was neither excessive nor un- 
deserved. 

What did Solon mean when he said he had freed the land? 
His statement is cast in a poetical form, sufficiently clear for his 
readers, who knew exactly what he was referring to, but somewhat 
obscure to us. ''I removed," he says, ''the stones of her bondage, 
and she who was a slave before is now free." The word which is 
translated ''stones of bondage" is one which in later times was 

1 Two reforms are attributed to Solon which it would be difficult to classify 
as executive or legislative : namely, the modification of the currency and of the 
system of weights and measures, and the reform of the calendar. But since 
there is nothing to justify us in beheving that Solon was personally responsible 
for these changes, we do not need to concern ourselves with them here. For a 
discussion see Appendix 5. 

2ix. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 63 

applied to small stone tablets which were set up on lands or houses 
which rested under a mortgage, bearing the names of the owner 
and the creditor and the amount of the loan. There may have 
been similar mortgages and similar records of them in Solon's 
time.^ If there were, we must infer that the result of Solon's 
action was the cancellation of all debts for which real property 
was held as security. But some scholars claim that the sale of 
land, unknown in primitive society, was only just coming into 
use in the first part of the sixth century and that when families 
held inalienable rights in their land, the institution of mortgage 
could not yet have appeared. If this contention is sound, we 
can only conclude that the stone tablets were set up as proof 
that the creditor could claim a certain fixed portion of the produce 
of the soil. This is equivalent to saying that while a creditor 
could not claim in return for a loan the land which served as 
security, he could nevertheless exact regular interest upon it, 
in the form of natural produce, until the debtor was able to dis- 
charge the debt. If this was the situation, we can easily recognize 
the justice of Solon's statement that the earth had been a slave. 
He indicates plainly that a large part of the soil of Attica had 
come under the control of wealthy creditors, and the very presence 
of the stones, everywhere visible, kept before men's minds the 
unequal distribution of wealth. Whatever may have been the 
exact character of the financial transaction which was recorded 
by the stones,^ in any case it is clear that the rights of the creditors 
were summarily annulled and the poor who had been laboring 
under a grievous obligation were restored to the full enjoyment 
of their own land. It cannot be supposed that the creditors were 
reimbursed out of the public treasury, because at this stage in the 
development of the state there could not have been a sufficiently 

1 On the question of mortgages see De Sanctis (1912, pp. 194 ff. with the 
footnotes) . 

2 For a fuller account of these stones (Spoi) see Gilliard (1907, pp. 129-136) 
and Sandys (1912, p. 46). 



64 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

large accumulation of public moneys to redeem debts of such 
magnitude ; thus the only persons upon whom a tax could be 
levied were the very ones who might have profited by it. We 
cannot escape the conclusion that Solon's order, while it brought 
great relief to the poor, must have caused a considerable loss to 
the rich. 

If the removal of the encumbrances which rested on the soil 
of Attica was accomplished only at the cost of the rich, the same 
must have been equally true of the liberation of Athenians who 
had sunk into slavery. The personal freedom of these unhappy 
creatures, which had been pledged as security for debts contracted 
by themselves or their relatives, had been forfeited. Failing to 
recover from destitute debtors the sums which they had lent them, 
the wealthy citizens had taken over the debtors themselves to be 
their slaves and to work for them without remuneration. If 
now these slaves were restored to liberty and nothing was paid 
for their redemptionyvtheir creditors must have suffered no slight 
loss. Those creditors who having seized upon the persons of 
their debtors had sold them abroad (as they might legally do)^ 
may have been in better case, because having already received 
the value of their slaves they were not now affected by their 
liberation. But it is not certain that they were. For if these 
slaves were to be redeemed from their foreign masters, Solon must 
have provided money for their purchase, and, though we can 
only conjecture how he obtained the money, it may be that he 
forced the original owners to provide it. 

It is not clear what Solon had to do in order to bring back 
to Athens citizens who had not been enslaved but had been forced 
into exile by reason of their poverty. Probably they had fled 
from threatened slavery, and the same cancellation of debts which 
liberated the slaves would have made it safe for them to re- 
turn to their homes. It is possible that they had emigrated 

iix9f. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 65 

from Athens not because they were oppressed by a load of debt 
but because living conditions were so hard that they could not rise 
above the level of sheer destitution ; in this case, however, 
nothing short of a general amelioration of economic conditions 
could have brought them back; whereas the tone of Solon's 
words implies that he had made it possible for them to return 
immediately. Again, possibly these unhappy exiles owned land 
in Attica which had fallen into the power of wealthy creditors; 
in this case, the liberation of the soil would have restored to them 
the opportunity of earning an independent livelihood. 

We cannot hope, after all, to know the exact terms of these 
several measures, and it is unwise to carry conjecture too far. 
We can see that much of the land and many of the men of Athens 
had come, according to the iniquitous custom of the time, into 
the power of the rich, and that they were rescued from their 
clutches. The only conceivable way of accomplishing this result, 
as far as we can see, was by canceling all debts which had been 
contracted on the security of the land or the persons of the debt- 
ors. Farther than this we cannot go, on the evidence which is 
afforded by Solon's own words. 

This cancellation of debts, either alone or in connection with 
supplementary legislation, was known in the later Greek world 
under the name Seisachtheia or ''disburdenment. " ^ Plutarch 
informs us ^ that this supplementary legislation took the form of 
a law prohibiting loans on the security of the person of the debtor. 
Aristotle does not expressly include this law in the Seisachtheia, 
but he mentions it in immediate connection with it.^ There can 
be little doubt that Solon instituted such a law immediately after 
the promulgation of the order providing for the cancellation of 
debts. If he had not taken such a step, there would have been 
nothing to prevent a prompt return of the same deplorable con- 

1 For Seisachtheia see Appendix 3 and Busolt (1895, pp. 259-261). 

2 Plut. Sol. XV. 3 Const. ofAth. vi. 



66 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

ditions which had only just been dispelled. We must, therefore, 
include in our survey of Solon's social and economic reforms 
this beneficent law which was calculated to perpetuate the 
personal liberty of Athenians. Never after, in the history of 
Athens, do we read of the enslavement or even the imprisonment 
of free men for debt, except in certain rare instances where vagrant 
and irresponsible persons had to be summarily dealt with.^ Un- 
fortunately we know nothing of the means adopted by Solon to 
prevent the rich from again getting into their power the land which 
belonged to impoverished debtors. There was the same need of 
permanent and effective legislation in this matter as in the matter 
of personal liberty. But the problem was infinitely more com- 
plicated. Land must still continue to serve as security for debts. 
What was needed was equitable regulation of the practice. But 
we know neither the procedure by which the rich had previously 
got the land into their power, nor the legislation by which Solon 
put a stop to it ; we must, therefore, content ourselves with the 
little which we have been able to gather from Solon's own state- 
ments. ^ - 

When by a few bold strokes Solon had rid Athenian society 
of the deplorable effects of long-standing abuses, it remained for 
him to establish the new order on a secure foundation. We have 
seen that he had very definite ideas of the best way to insure the 
happiness of the state. Eunomia was the name which he applied 
to his ideal of civic order. The field was now clear for him to 
inaugurate a reign of law which would provide for the Athenians 
all the blessings which he had described in his earlier poem. 

Now, in order that a state may thrive and prosper under a 
reign of law, two things are essential : on the one hand, the laws 

1 Speakiiiij of the abolition of slavery for debt, Glotz remarks (1904, p. 368): 
" I)es les premieres annees du sixieme siecle avant iiotre ere, Athenes a ainsi 
plac6 sa legislation a line hauteur qui n'est atteinte aujourd'hui encore, et depuis 
peu de temps, i\uv, par (juelques codes des nations les plus civilis^es." This 
action may be credited to Solon without doubt. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 67 

must be wisely framed and impartially administercci ; on the 
other hand, the people must be loyal in their obedience to them and 
wise and patient when the need arises for a modification of them. 
Of these two essentials, Solon, at the best, could provide only one. 
He could do no more than build the machine and set it in motion ; 
thereafter its success or failure would be only in part dependent 
on the skill and ingenuity with which he had constructed it. Un- 
less the people were endowed with the capacity for self-govern- 
ment, the machine would soon be broken and useless. 

Though only one of the two essentials could be provided 
wholly and completely by Solon, it should not be forgotten that 
he had done everything in his power to provide the other. In 
the early poem, which has just been mentioned, he had done what 
he could to direct the attention of the Athenians to the beauty 
of Eunomia. And we cannot but believe that he had bent every 
effort to implant in their minds a love and respect for the true 
freedom which a reign of law guarantees. Such admonitions 
must have formed the subject of other poems which are now 
lost; and he must have embraced every opportunity offered by 
daily intercourse with his fellow-citizens to establish a sound 
public opinion. But the dissemination of such ideas is a slow 
business ; no single individual, however wise he may be, can 
assure the wisdom of a whole community. The very nature of 
popular government forbids even an ardent advocate of its doc- 
trines to exert any pressure upon the will of the citizens other 
than that of his own moral influence. 

Probably, at the beginning of the sixth century b.c, Solon 
could not foresee the dangers and difficulties of free institutions. 
The experiment had never yet been tried. Solon's chief claim to 
glory lies in the fact that, at a moment when Athens was in sore 
need of good government, he rejected the manifest opportunity 
to provide such government by making himself a benevolent 
autocrat and, acting on the faith that was in him, insisted that 



68 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

the Athenians undertake the task of governing themselves. He 
prepared the way for them. Without such preparation nothing 
could have been done. He swept away all that he believed to be 
a hindrance to freedom, and provided the people with the necessary 
instrument for the preservation of their freedom. The future 
lay with the Athenians.^ 

5 

What was the nature of the instrument which he provided? 
In his own words, a body of written laws providing the fair ad- 
ministration of justice for every individual.^ Just how much 
or how little is meant by these words, it has been hitherto beyond 
the power of scholars to determine. At the most, they imply 
that Solon was the first to provide the Athenians with a written 
code ; at the least, they would signify that he had simply added 
to a written code already in existence a limited number of laws 
which were essential for the establishment of an impartial ad- 
ministration of justice. It was the universal behef of antiquity 
that Draco was the first to provide the Athenians with a written 
code and that Solon had repealed all of Draco's laws except those 
relating to homicide, and had created a new code in its place. ^ But 
this is manifestly an assumption which could not rest on any real 
evidence. Whatever Greeks of a later age knew about the laws 
of Solon, they could certainly know nothing of a code which pre- 
ceded that of Solon and which Solon had abolished. They did 
know, as we learn from inscriptions, that the laws relating to homi- 
cide which were still in force at the end of the fifth century were 
recorded under the name of Draco.'* This fact probably led them 

1 " Solon a m6rit6 sa gloire moins par son action sur les partis, qu'il ne put 
jamais maltriser, ou par sa constitution, qui ne r^sista pas cinq ans a Tassaut des 
m6contents, qne par les principes qu'il introduisit dans la legislation pour toujours, 
par les prescriptions ou ses concitoyens ne cesserent plus de voir le r6sum6 de la 
sagesse humaine.'' — Glotz (1004, p. 326). 

2 ix 18-20. 3 Const, of Ath. iv 1, vii 1 ; Pint. Sol. xvii 1. 

4 C. I. A. i 61. Furthermore, Plutarch suggests {Sol. xix 2) that Solon 
founded the Areopagus and supports the theory by the fact that Draco 



THE ARCHONSHIP 69 

to the inference that Draco had drafted a full code of laws and 
that since all early laws then extant were attributed to Solon, the 
still earlier code of Draco, with the exception mentioned, had 
been repealed. We cannot accept this inference without evidence 
that some substantial proof of it existed. Nor, on the other hand, 
can we deny flatly that there was a full written code of laws be- 
fore Solon. It is a significant fact that a strict construction of 
Solon's own words suggests that he himself believed that the good 
effect of his work was due, not primarily to the quality of his laws, 
but rather to the fact that he had reduced them to writing.^ 
One should not insist too strongly upon this clue, but at the same 
time it should not be overlooked. 

If Solon was indeed the first to reduce the laws of Athens 
to writing, we must put a far higher estimate on his services to 
the people. As long as justice was administered solely on the 
basis of unwritten custom and precedent, there was no limita- 
tion on the power of the magistrates who were themselves the 
depositary of the law ; and since the magistrates without excep- 
tion were chosen among the rich and noble, the lower classes were 
entirely in their hands. ^ The most arbitrary and oppressive 
procedure might pass under the name of justice, because the 
magistrates could maintain that their judgments were given in 
accordance with the law of the land. But if the law of the land 
was recorded in writing, so that it could be consulted by all who 
could read, the magistrates could not pervert justice to their own 
purposes without open defiance of the law. The importance of 
such a change cannot be overestimated. The reduction of the 

nowhere mentions the Areopagites but always addresses himself to the Ephetae 
in cases of homicide. There must, therefore, have been a set of laws relating to 
homicide which were accepted as the work of Draco. Elsewhere we learn that 
these laws of Draco were incorporated into the first of the Axones which were 
supposed to contain the laws of Solon. Evidently there was no documentary 
evidence to show exactly what Solon had done in a constitutional way. 

1 Appendix 4. 

2 Cf. Aesch. Prom. 186 f. olb Sti Tpaxi>J (i.e., ZciJs) Kaiira.p' cauTy rb dUaiov 



70 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

laws to writing was a democratic reform of the first magnitude. 
If the thing had been done by Draco, it must have been done 
in the interest of the common people ; and it is difficult to under- 
stand why his work should have had to be annulled in so short 
a time. The temptation is strong to deny the credit to Draco 
and give it to Solon, but unfortunately the matter lies beyond the 
reach of real proof. 

Whether the code of Solon was the first written code in Athens 
or not, we can be sure that it marked an important departure 
from conditions which had previously prevailed. Solon makes 
the explicit claim that it assured an impartial administration of 
justice for all, high and low alike. If this claim was well founded, 
the achievement certainly deserves unlimited praise ; in any case 
Solon himself deserves unlimited praise for so high a purpose. 
Was his claim really justified? Have we any information on 
which an answer to this important and fundamental question 
can be safely based ? 

As we might expect, there is no allusion to any particular 
law in the extant poems of Solon. Probably none of the poems 
contained any such allusion. Prosaic as the matters are with 
which he sometimes deals, we should be surprised to find anything 
like the terms of a law appearing in his verse. But among later 
Greek and even Roman authors we may collect a large number of 
laws which were attributed to him. One or two appear as early 
as Herodotus and Aristophanes.^ Aristotle mentions a few; 
there are many in Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius ; others are 
scattered among other authors. But the largest number are con- 
tained in the speeches of Demosthenes and the other Attic ora- 
tors. Many of the laws attributed to him manifestly belong to 
a later period ; a few can be definitely connected with his name ; 
the majority are such as might have been written by any early 
legislator. In order to know what confidence can be placed in 

1 Herodotus ii 177 ; Aristophanes Birds 1660. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 71 

the authenticity of this considerable body of supposedly Solonian 
laws, it is necessary to inquire how the laws which were written 
by Solon at the beginning of the sixth century could have been 
preserved as his recognizable work during the century and a half 
that intervenes before the first mention of a Solonian law by a 
Greek author. Such an inquiry leads to the conclusion (stated 
more fully elsewhere),^ that we have no right to accept any of 
these laws as genuinely Solonian unless there is some internal or 
external proof other than the mere ascription of them to him by 
the Greek writers. The nucleus, the original cell, of the great 
body of Athenian law was created by Solon ; this cell contained 
within itself all the characteristics of the mature organism ; but 
in the course of time the original cell expanded and multiplied, 
until in the end, though the original life-principle had never been 
lost, Athenian law was a thing infinitely greater and more complex 
than it had been at the beginning of its long life of two hundred 
years. This biological analogy, though slightly misleading, is 
fimdamentally true. Undoubtedly much of the original tissue 
of Solon's code still survived in the fourth century, but it was 
so imbedded in later accretions that it is practically impossible 
for us to isolate it. With a few exceptions, therefore, the many 
laws which pass under the name of Solon cannot be used as evi- 
dence of the character of his code. They are of the highest in- 
terest and importance to the student of Athenian law, but since 
the work of Solon cannot be distinguished from the laws which were 
in force before his time or from the laws which were passed sub- 
sequently, one who is curious primarily about the life and career 
of Solon himself finds little in them to assist him to a clearer view.^ 

1 See Appendix 4. 

2 For Solon's revision of the legal code, in addition to the standard works on 
constitutional and legal antiquities, see Busolt (1895, pp. 287-295) and the ex- 
cellent discussion by Gilliard (1907, pp. 28 ff.) of the authenticity of the laws 
attributed to Solon. Sondhaus's dissertation (1909) is a collection of the laws 
attributed to Solon, classified under the several magistrates whose province it was 
to administrate them. He accepts almost all the laws as authentic, differing 



72 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Perhaps the law which may be assigned to Solon with the 
least hesitation is that prohibiting loans on the security of the 
person of the debtor. We have seen that a law of this tenor was 
necessary in order to prevent the recurrence of the evils which 
had been corrected by executive order. Besides this, two laws 
are recorded which bear within them the date of the archonship 
of Solon. Of these one, whose authenticity is generally recog- 
nized, legalized the practice of leaving property by will to persons 
unrelated by blood. ^ This is a step common to all communities 
which pass from the primitive condition which recognizes only 
family rights and not personal rights in property. The other of 
the two laws provided for the reenfranchisement of all persons 
who had been disfranchised before the archonship of Solon, with 
certain specified exceptions ; ^ but even this law, which seems so 
well attested, is open to grave suspicion. 

fundamentally from Gilliard, who refuses to recognize more than a few. Glotz 
(1904, pp. 325 ff.) discusses at considerable length the effect of Solon's legislation 
upon the solidarity of the family ; but one is disposed to doubt whether all that 
is attributed to Solon by him is actually Solon's own work. It may be that re- 
forms that were supposed to have been achieved by Solon were not actually his 
alone, but rather the results of prolonged effort on the part of the Athenians. 
Glotz's study, however, is one of the most important contributions to the early 
history of Athenian law. 

1 On the laws of inheritance and certain other laws whose authenticity is 
comparatively sure, see Glotz (1904, pp. 325 ff.) and De Sanctis (1912, pp. 
211 ff.). The following passage from Glotz may also be quoted in this connec- 
tion (p. 397) : " Dans la p^riode de la transition qui nous a mends de la famille 
souveraine k I'^tat souveraine, tandis que nous suivions les progres de I'indi- 
vidualisme dans le droit grec, petit k petit tout I'int^ret de cette ^tude s'est con- 
centre sur Athenes. Ce n'est pas seulement parce que cette ville b^n^ficie de la 
gloire acquise plus tard et des documents plus nombreux qu'elle a laiss^s. C'est 
que r^ellement, k partir du sixi^me siecle, en un temps ou toutes les cit^s avaient 
^galement supprim^ la responsabilit^ familiale en droit commun, elle surpassa 
les autres par la vigeur des coups dont elle frappa I'organisme interne et Paction 
sociale des y^vr}. L'homme ici f ut libre plus tot que partout ailleurs. A un progres 
jusqu'alors continu, mais lent comme une fatality, Solon donna une pouss^e 
decisive. Et c'est ainsi qu'il lit passer sa patrie au premier rang, et que I'his- 
toire des ameliorations introduites dans les lois grecques se conf ond avec Phistoire 
m§me de la legislation attique." 

2 Plut. Sol. xix ; cf . Andocides i 77 f . 



THE ARCHONSHIP 73 

6 

It may be a matter for surprise that in our examination of 
the measures which Solon adopted for the ameUoration of condi- 
tions in Athens no account has been taken so far of the changes 
which he may be supposed to have introduced in the poUtical 
organization of the state. It is the habit in modern times to 
beUeve that the chief remedy for the discontent of the lower 
classes lies in the enlargement of their political rights. And yet 
in all that survives to us of Solon's own words we find but one 
obscure hint of political reform. Are we to suppose that he made 
Uttle or no change in the constitution ? Or are we to suppose that 
though he did bring about changes of importance he has omitted 
any mention of them in his poems ? " There is much talk among 
ancient writers and modern scholars of the Solonian constitution, 
and there can be little doubt that he was responsible for modifi- 
cations of some sort. Probably the explanation of his silence 
is to be found in the fact that in the ancient world there was 
no distinction between constitutional law and statutory law; 
his allusions to law in general must be understood to cover his 
reforms in the governmental machinery as well as in the laws 
which the government was designed to administer. It is probable 
that if we had a full copy of Solon's laws, we should have as full 
a statement as ever existed of Solon's constitutional measures. 

All that Solon himself has to tell us about his changes in the 
form of government is to be found in a single fragment which is 
quoted by Aristotle.^ He says : 

To the common people I have given such a measure of privilege as 
sufficeth them, neither robbing them of the rights they had, nor holding out 
the hope of greater ones ; and I have taken equal thought for those who 
were possessed of power and who were looked up to on account of their 
wealth, careful that they too should suffer no indignity. I have taken 
a stand which enables me to hold a stout shield over both groups, and I 
have allowed neither to triumph unjustly over the other. 



74 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

These words certainly imply that changes of some sort had 
been made ; but they chiefly emphasize the fact that the changes 
had been slight. Whether our judgment of the extent and im- 
portance of these changes, or the judgment of Solon's contem- 
poraries, would have been the same as his own, of course we cannot 
say. If Aristotle's verdict is sound, ^ that Solon had actually" 
transferred the sovereignty from the nobles to the common people, 
or rather to the people as a whole, we must admit either that 
Solon's changes were more far-reaching than he knew or that he 
was minimizing their effect. But perhaps he is not here discuss- 
ing the total effect of his reforms. The words which he actually 
uses imply, though they do not assert, that he is thinking of the 
right to hold office. If this is the case, they contain a fair judg- 
ment of the provisions concerning eligibility to office which we 
shall find later in Aristotle's description of the constitution. 
More than all else, this statement of Solon reveals in a very strik- 
ing way his own view of the extent to which it is wise to grant 
political rights to the lower classes. He does not for a moment 
believe that they should enjoy the same rights as the upper classes. 
"Such a measure of privilege as sufficeth them" evidently means 
in his mind a measure of power sufficient to defend them against 
the injustice and abuse of the upper classes, from which alone the 
magistrates were chosen. Similar words might have been used 
in Rome of the portentous institution of the tribunate ; but 
whereas the Roman tribunate culminated in the principate, 
the defensive power of the Athenian plebs led ultimately to the 
most extreme form of democracy. However, such an outcome as 
this unquestionably lay far beyond the range of Solon's prophetic 
vision. 

Excepting this single obscure allusion to political change 
which is made by Solon himself, our information on this very 
important subject is all derived from Greek writers of later times. 
1 Const, of Ath. ix ; cf. Arist. Pol. ii 12, 1273 b, 34 to 1274 a, 23. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 75 

principally from Aristotle and Plutarch. Aristotle devotes 
several pages to the subject in the Constitution of Athens and a 
page or two in the Politics.^ Plutarch adds little to what may be 
learned from Aristotle. From these authorities we derive cer- 
tain categorical statements about some features of the Solonian 
constitution, some critical observations on its tendencies, but 
nothing like a detailed description. Aristotle himself probably 
learned what he knew about Solon's constitutional reforms partly 
from his own researches and the researches of his pupils, and 
partly from the works of his predecessors, especially Androtion 
and the other students of Athenian history.^ But what was the 
ultimate source of authoritative information? Whatever politi- 
cal changes Solon brought about, he must have promulgated 
either by executive order or in his completed code of laws.^ Docu- 
mentary evidence, therefore, of a rehable nature must have been 
completely lacking at the end of the fifth century. As far as 
we can see, the opinions of Androtion and Aristotle must have 
rested upon the evidence of extant laws which were attributed to 
Solon,^ upon inferences drawn from the political institutions of 
the time, and to a certain extent upon tradition. At the best, 

1 Const, of Ath. v-xii ; for references to the Politics see p. 14, footnote 2 ; 
Plut. Sol. xvii-xix. 

2 Cf . pp. 18 ff. 

3 The ancient confusion between the two conceptions of constitutional and 
statutory law is often exhibited, as in Aeschines iii 38 tw w/uo^^tt^tv ttjv 8-qixoKpa- 
rlav KaraaT-qaavTi ; 257 tov KaWlaTots vojiois KOCT/irjCTaPTa ttjv drjfjLOKparlav ; Isocrates 
vii 16 ivotxodeTTjcre d-q/uLOKpaTiai'. Lysias (xxx 28) ranges Solon with Themistocles 
and Pericles as one of the great democratic voiJ.od^Tj.L, and elsewhere the name of 
Solon is found in groups including these names and the names of Clisthenes and 
Aristides. Other passages in which Solon is referred to as the first leader of the 
popular party are : Const, of Ath. xxviii 2, xli 2 ; Aristophanes Clouds 1187; 
Isocrates vii 16, xv 232 ; Andocides i 81 ff., 95, 111 ; Lysias xxx 2 ; Demosthenes 
xviii 6 ; Aeschines iii 257. 

4 An example of this method may be seen in Const, of Ath. viii 3. Here 
Aristotle infers the function of the vavKpapoi from the frequent appearance in 
Solon's laws of the words rods vavKpdpovs eiairpaTTeiv and dva\i<XK€iv iK tov vavKpa- 
piKov dpyvpiov. These phrases, he says, are found in laws no longer in use. In 
Const, of Ath. viii 4 he determines one of the powers of the Areopagus on the 
testimony of a law attributed to Solon relating to the process of eia-ayyeXia against 
men who conspired to overthrow the state. 



76 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

only very uncertain conclusions can be drawn from evidence of 
this kind, especially in a subject like constitutional law which 
requires great precision of terms. But we are not in a position 
to control the results of Aristotle's study of the evidence ; we 
cannot be sure how far his statements were justified even by the 
meager facts at his disposal. 

Furthermore, if Aristotle knew comparatively little about the 
constitution of Solon, he knew even less about the constitution 
which was in use before the period of reform. We are embarrassed 
by the spectral constitution of Draco. It is a matter of endless 
dispute whether Draco, besides what he is supposed to have done 
towards the codification of the laws, also made changes in the 
constitution of the state. Until the discovery of Aristotle's 
treatise on the Constitution of Athens, there was not a shred of 
evidence for a Draconian constitution. Now that we have this 
pamphlet before our eyes, we are scarcely better ofif, because 
Aristotle appears to have drawn his information from an oli- 
garchic writer who might have found it to his advantage to forge 
a constitution of Draco.^ Aristotle's very brief account of Draco's 
reforms includes, furthermore, allusions to several features which 
are also attributed to Solon. If we could examine in their com- 
pleteness the measures which Solon adopted for the government 
of Athens, and if we could set them by the side of the institutions 
which had preceded them, we should be able to form a just con- 
ception of the political principles by which he was actuated and 
of the sagacity and skill which he brought to his task. But 
this we cannot do. We must be content with the brief critical 
estimate of his work which we find in Aristotle and Plutarch, and 
with the common opinion of antiquity, and recognize frankly 
that any real corroboration of the ancient account is impossible.^ 

1 Busolt (1805, pp. 36 ff.). 

2 For the features of the Solonian constitution, in addition to the standard 
works on constitutional and le.2;al antiquities, see Busolt (1895, pp. 264-287); 
Lehmann-llaupt (1906) ; the chapter of De Sanctis (1912) on "La prima costi- 



THE ARCHONSHIP 77 



One of the most striking features of Solon's legislation is that 
he did not pretend to believe that all men are equal. Founder 
of the Athenian democracy though he was, he nevertheless based 
his system of government upon clearly defined classes. It ap- 
pears that there already existed in the state four classes of citizens, 
openly recognized and plainly named. These were the Pen- 
tacosiomedimni, the Hippeis, the Zeugitae, and the Thetes. The 
literal meaning of these words is clear : the first were men whose 
income amounted to five hundred measures ; the second were 
knights, men who owned and were able to support a horse ; the 
third were men who owned a yoke of oxen for farm work ; and 
the fourth were common laborers. Undoubtedly the names of 
the classes bore these meanings in the beginning. The last 
three are common nouns, and it was no doubt through popular 
usage that they came to be applied to three several classes in the 
economic scale. The name of the first class has an artificial 
appearance, as if it had been coined by a theorist or a legislator. 
But it may have been as much a popular invention as the word 
''millionaire." However this may be, we may assume that 
three of the names at any rate were old. Whether they had been 
used in a technical sense before Solon, to denominate four classes 
officially recognized by the state, we cannot tell. It would be 
interesting to know whether he was the first to recognize them 
officially, or whether he was merely continuing, in a modified 
form perhaps, dispositions which had been made before his time. 
Whenever it was that the four classes were first recognized by 
the Athenian constitution, it appears that they were given at 
some time a more precise definition than the meaning of the words 
themselves would imply. The Pentacosiomedimni included all 



tuzione scritta " ; Sandys (1912), who gives a copious bibliography ; the chapter 
of Beloch (1913) entitled "Zur Verfassungsgeschichte Athens." 



78 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Athenian citizens whose land produced annually five hundred or 
more measures of corn and oil, the Hippeis, all whose land pro- 
duced from three to five hundred measures, the Zeugitae, all whose 
land produced from two to three hundred measures; and all 
below the Zeugitae belonged to the class of Thetes.^ It will be 
observed that this division into classes was made entirely on an 
agrarian basis. It was a frank recognition of the landed aris- 
tocracy. The wealthy manufacturer or trader could not claim 
a place in the upper classes on the basis of his income. The 
ownership of Attic soil was the only key to these exclusive 
groups. We cannot positively assert that under Solon the class 
distinctions were exactly as they have been described ; but at 
any rate there is no evidence for supposing that they were not. 

It is very difficult to understand how membership in the 
several classes was determined. The distribution could not be made 
once for all, because there must have been considerable fluctua- 
tion in the size of the crops from year to year. But how could an 
annual census of the population be taken? Possibly no census 
at all was taken. Possibly only those citizens who were actually 
nominated for office were required to prove that their land had 
during the previous year produced enough to place them in the 
class eligible for the office in question. Again, if only those men 
were eligible for office who gathered from their own land large 
enough crops to admit them to the required class, what are we 
to think of the increasingly large group of men whose income was 
derived from manufacture or trade ? This was the class to which 
Solon belonged, and this was the class which during the next 
ten or twenty years were the chief supporters of his policies. Only 
two answers present themselves. Either the successful manu- 

1 Const, of Ath. vii 4. Aristotle was uncertain of the requirements for the 
class of the Knii^hts and presents several pieces of indirect evidence. Manifestly 
neither he nor his sources had any direct documentary evidence. For a discus- 
sion of the four classes, see Busolt (1895, pp. 180 ff.), and Gilliard (1907, pp 
221-240). 



THE ARCHONSHIP 79 

facturer or trader must invest his money in land, if he was not 
ah'ead}^ a landholder — a requirement which with the develop- 
ment of commercial and industrial life must soon grow irksome — 
or the census was not based actually upon the produce of the soil, 
but upon incomes from all sources, measured in terms of the 
produce of the soil. This is contrary to the express language of 

Aristotle — os av Ik rr}<s oiKCtas ttolyJ irevTaKOcrta fxlrpa ^ — which is SO ex- 
plicit that if we deny the truth of it we must also admit that 
Aristotle himself was in error. 

In what way did Solon make use of this division into classes ? 
One naturally expects to find that the higher classes were called 
upon to perform special duties and that they enjoyed in return 
certain rights and privileges. One thinks of the later Athenian 
system of liturgies and of the modern income tax. But in Solon's 
government, as far as we know, the classes served only to define 
the eligibility of the citizens to the several public offices. The 
highest officials of the state might be chosen only from citizens 
of the first class ; the next highest from the second class ; the 
lowest from the third. Members of the Thetic class were not 
eligible to office.^ 

At first sight there is little that is democratic in such a system. 
One learns with a slight shock of disappointment that the father 
of democracy did not establish a democracy at all, but an aris- 
tocracy, or rather a timocracy, in which wealth was a requisite 
for a share in the government. But the case is not complete yet. 
We have not yet discovered the sovereign power in the Solonian 
state. Let us postpone judgment for a time. In the meanwhile 
it is fair to ask whether the timocratic arrangements marked any 
advance over previous conditions. It is not fair to judge Solon's 
achievement solely by the standard of perfect democracy. 

In the first })lace, let us inquire who was actually excluded 

1 Const, of Ath. vii 4. 

2 Const, of Ath. vii ; Pint. Sol. xviii 2 ; Arist. Pol. ii 12, 1274 a, 18 ff. 



80 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

from office by Solon's plan. Only members of the lowest class ; 
only men who owned no land or who owned so little that they 
derived from it less than two hundred measures a year; only 
those who, as a general rule, were so lacking in enterprise and 
intelligence that they could not rise above a very humble station 
in life ; only those who were manifestly unfit to hold a responsible 
post in the government. Men of this type rarely hold office 
even in a real democracy, and when they do, it is regarded as a 
public calamity. Probably by far the larger number of Athenian 
citizens were included in the three upper classes. Probably these 
classes included all who were fit to hold office. And let us recall 
that by the Seisachtheia and by the law which forbade lending 
money on the person of the debtor, Solon had opened a fair field 
for all honest endeavor. Economically all men were equal ; 
any man who could show his worth in the ordinary business of 
life received his proper portion of political rights. There was a 
certain justice in the property requirement. In an age when 
education was not universal, only those persons who enjoyed the 
advantages of good birth and at least moderate wealth could 
attain to such a measure of cultivation and experience as would 
properly prepare them for public life. Solon saw things as they 
were and made his plans accordingly. He was indeed an idealist 
in some ways : without idealism he could have accomplished 
nothing. But he was not the man to wreck his ship upon a rock 
because his eyes were on the distant haven. 

Was the new arrangement better than the old? Alas, we 
know so little of Athens before the archonship of Solon that we 
cannot say for certain. But we may guess at the nature of the 
change, with some probability that we shall not go very wide of 
the mark. The affairs of Athens, since the abolition of the king- 
ship, had been in the hands of the hereditary nobility. Little 
by little, with the changing conditions of the world, the benevo- 
lent rule of the nobles had given way to greedy and rapacious 



THE ARCHONSHIP 81 

exploitation of the lower classes ; the mass of the people, no 
longer acquiescent and contented, became more and more tur- 
bulent and revolutionary. Civil war had been threatening for 
fifty years. Under these circumstances it is only reasonable to 
conclude that until the time of Solon the public offices of Athens 
were the monopoly of a narrow oligarchy. We are told that 
officials had been appointed from year to year by the council of 
the Areopagus,^ and the council of the Areopagus was the organ 
of the dominant families in the state. If this had really been the 
state of affairs in Athens -(as it probably had been), we should be 
ready to admit that the constitutional regulations of Solon, 
preceded by the Seisachtheia and the abolition of slavery for debt, 
which were the necessary preliminary, introduced a political 
order infinitely more liberal than anything which had yet been 
known. 

We have now examined the significance of the first feature of 
the Solonian constitution : all officials were to be chosen from 
among the members of the three upper classes. Who were these 
officials? Did Solon introduce new offices? Apparently not. 
All offices mentioned are earlier institutions ^ — the nine archons, 
including the Eponymous Archon, the King Archon, the Polem- 
arch, and the six Thesmothetae ; the Tamiae, the Poletae, the 
Colacretae, the Eleven.^ There seems to have been no change 
in any of these offices, except that the circle of eligibihty was 
widened. 

The next important question concerns the manner in which 
officials were chosen. Aristotle says explicitly that the method 
was a combination of election and sortition.^ Each of the four 
tribes chose a list of candidates and from these combined lists 
the required number were selected by lot. In the case of the ar- 

1 Const, of Ath. viii 2. 

2 On the pre-Solonian Athenian magistracies see Busolt (1895, pp. 153 ff.). 

3 Const, of Ath. vii 3. 

4 Const, of Ath. viii ; cf. Plut. Comp. Sol. et Publ. ii. 



S2 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

chons, for example, each tribe chose ten candidates, and from the 
total number of forty, the nine archons were selected by lot. These 
statements are open to great suspicion, especially since they seem 
to be inferences drawn from the practices of later times. Origi- 
nally the appointment of archons was in the power of the Areop- 
agus, and since this method had at some time been replaced 
by the method which has just been described, Aristotle assumes 
that the change was introduced by Solon. But whether the as- 
sumption is true or not, it throws very little light on the working 
of the government. Undoubtedly the lot is the foe of special 
privilege, and was later a characteristic of the Athenian democ- 
racy. In the absence, however, of any information concerning 
the method employed in the primary choice of candidates, we 
cannot decide what advance Solon may have made over the 
oligarchic rule of the past.^ 

This is the sum of our knowledge concerning the modifica- 
tions which were introduced by Solon in connection with the 
magistracies of the state. We turn now to the councils. 

Aristotle announces with the utmost brevity that Solon created 
a Council of Four Hundred composed of one hundred members 
from each of the four tribes.^ What the duties and privileges of 
this council were, how the members were chosen, what classes of 
citizens were eligible to membership in it, — to these questions 

1 Cf. Arist. Pol. ii 12, 1274 a and iii 11, 1281 b. It appears that ancient 
scholars were generally agreed that Solon had given to all citizens without dis- 
tinction certain powers of control over the magistrates. It is not certain exactly 
what these powers were ; they are stated in different forms in different places. 
And there was a difference of opinion concerning the merit of the innovation : 
some regarded Solon's polity as an ideal mixture of oligarchy, aristocracy, and 
democracy ; others thought the democratic element had killed the other two. 
Aristotle does not hold Solon responsible for the radical democracy of the fifth 
century. One might judge from his account that he felt that it was generally 
known what changes Solon had made in the constitution and that it was not neces- 
sary to describe them; But one does not get the impression that he had documen- 
tary evidence. Manifestly Solon was generally regarded as the founder of the 
Trdrpios b-niioKpaT€la, that is, the democratic form of government obtained by elim- 
inating the democratic excesses of the fifth century. 

2 Const, of Atli. viii 4. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 83 

he supplies no answers. Unfortunately, a few pages earlier in 
his essay, he has ascribed to Draco a Council of Four Hundred 
One,^ and we are completely baffled in any attempt to reconcile 
the conflicting statements. Plutarch is more communicative.^ 
He represents this council as an addition to the governmental 
arrangements which was necessary in order to secure political 
equilibrium betiveen the classes. The Council of the Areopagus, 
we may safely believe, was an ancient institution, the old council 
of elders, the Athenian house of lords. This council Solon re- 
tained, but he apparently introduced certain modifications in its 
composition and its prerogatives. Exactly how it had been con- 
stituted in the past we do not know, but the explicitness with 
which we are told about the organization of it under Solon argues 
that the features which are expressly described were thought to 
be novel. ^ In the first place, it was to be composed of all men 
who had served as archons. This means, of course, that all 
Athenians belonging to the property-class whose members were 
eligible to the archonship were also eligible to the Areopagus. 
We may believe that this new definition of membership is an in- 
dication of much more narrowly restricted membership in the 
past. If noble birth had been the requisite for admission to the 
Areopagus before Solon's time, the new requisite was the owner- 
ship of a certain amount of the soil of Attica. But the council 
still remained the conservative element in the state. It was to 
act as the governor in the political machine, which was to exercise 
control over wild and revolutionary procedure. It was expressly 
designated the guardian of the laws. No doubt it had been the 
guardian of the la^ys in the past ; but it had been also the sovereign 
executive of the laws. It had been the steam box and the driving 
wheel as well as the governor in the engine of state. The magis- 
trates had been appointed by the council ; now, the council was 

1 Const, of Ath. iv 3. 2 piut. Sol. xix ; Comp. Sol. et Publ. ii. 

3 Const, of Ath. viii ; Plut. Sol. xix ; Comp. Sol. et Publ. ii. 



84 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

composed of past magistrates who had been chosen by a larger 
electorate. The council now played a subordinate part in the 
administration of the state, but a part which it was eminently 
fitted to play, both because of its historic dignity and because 
of the naturally conservative temper of the class from which its 
members were drawn. 

Let us now return to the Council of Four Hundred. Plutarch 
tells us that the Council of the Areopagus was not sufficient to 
meet the needs of the time. The Seisachtheia had given the people 
a taste of liberty, and they were in a mood to demand more liberty 
and greater political privilege. Besides, they were probably sus- 
picious of the Areopagus, the ancient bulwark of special privilege. 
Though its sting had been drawn, they were still afraid of its 
bite. This was the need which, according to Plutarch, the 
Council of Four Hundred was created to meet. It was to be a 
house of commons, larger and more widely representative than 
the upper house, and its part in the government was to give 
expression to the more progressive and liberal aspirations of the 
community. 

There was still another council in Athens, as ancient as the 
Council of the Areopagus itself. The Ecclesia, or popular as- 
sembly, had probably always been a vital element in Athenian 
government, and was destined in the future to become all-power- 
ful. In a city as small as Athens the method of representative 
government was not necessary, or at any rate it was not practiced ; 
the people managed their own affairs without intermediary. 
Now we may imagine that the economic reforms of Solon, though 
they had not transformed the people of Athens into a fierce de- 
mocracy like that which Cleon harangued at the end of the fifth 
century, had nevertheless aroused in them political ambitions 
which might easily wreck the state if they were not controlled. 
The new council, in the words of Plutarch, ''was to deliberate 
on public matters before the people did, and was not to allow 



THE ARCHONSHIP 85 

any matter to come before the popular assembly without such 
previous deliberation." Its function, therefore, was to control 
the exuberant activity of the Ecclesia; to stand in the same 
relation to the Ecclesia as the Areopagus to the state as a 
whole. But — and here we revert to the character of the 
council as a popular organization — the people were not dis- 
trustful of it, because it was their own and not associated with 
a hereditary aristocracy. ''The city with its two councils," says 
Plutarch, ''riding as it were at double anchor, would be less 
tossed by the surges, and would keep its populace in greater 
quiet." 

It has been assumed throughout this discussion that the 
Council of Four Hundred was open to the majority of Athenian 
citizens. The Council of the Areopagus was composed of past 
archons; the Ecclesia was open to any Athenian of any class. 
We do not know whether any property qualification was required 
for eligibility to the Four Hundred. But it is extremely likely 
that all Athenians of the three upper classes were eligible, even 
if the members of the Thetic class were excluded. 

Two political privileges alone were allowed to the class of 
Thetes. One has just been mentioned, namely, membership in the 
Ecclesia. The other was the privilege of membership in the Dicas- 
terion, or popular court. ^ In later times this popular court 
was multiplied into a larger number of courts which sat in judg- 
ment upon practically all legal disputes in Athens. It came to 
be one of the most characteristic institutions of democratic Athens. 
Just how it was organized in Solon's time we do not know, nor 
do we know the extent of its prerogatives. We cannot even say 
categorically that it was instituted by Solon. But we may say, 
on the authority of Aristotle, first, that Solon allowed an appeal 
from the decision of the magistrates to the popular court, and, 
second, that he permitted members of the Thetic class to sit in it. 
1 Const, of Ath. vii 3, ix ; Plut. Sol. xviii. 



86 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Here at last we find the sovereign power in the state : ''the people, 
being master of the juryman's ballot, became thereby master of 
the state." ^ With this powerful instrument in their hands, the 
people need never again fear the partial judgment of oligarchic 
despots. They were masters of their own fate. It is not necessary 
to assume, as some do, that the popular court had the right to 
call a magistrate to account at the close of his term of office : this 
practice, again highly characteristic of democratic Athens, may 
have been instituted by Solon ; but we have no definite knowledge 
that it was. Even without this prerogative, the popular court 
was already a safeguard of popular liberty. 

Little more can be said about the constitution which Solon 
established. We have seen that the changes which he introduced 
were few in number, but far reaching in effect. There is noth- 
ing violent in his measures. Most of the old tools with the old 
names are still in use. But beneath the surface a deep poHtical 
revolution was enacted. Nobihty of birth and hereditary privi- 
lege were quietly set aside, and in their place was put equality 
of rights. But the whole transformation was carried through 
with so much moderation that in describing it one fears to slight 
its conservative qualities if he praises its liberality, and to do less 
than justice to its liberality if he insists on its cautious conserv- 
atism. If Louis XIV could say, ''I am the State," Solon might 
with equal truth say, ''I am the Revolution." 

Let us try to avoid any misunderstanding concerning the form 
of this constitution which the ancients attributed to Solon. There 
is no evidence whatever that he drew up a constitution in docu- 
mentary form. Indeed, probably neither Athens nor any other 
Greek state ever had a formal constitution. The magistracies 
and the various governmental practices seem to have grown out 
of custom and tradition, or out of statutory legislation. We 
do not know just how Solon promulgated and recorded the meas- 

1 Const, of Ath. ix ; Plut. Sol. xviii 3. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 87 

ures which affected what we should call the constitution. Prob- 
ably most of them took the form of special laws prescribing the 
action of certain magistrates under certain conditions.^ It was 
the laws of Solon that were recorded and which were regarded 
as the charter of Athenian liberties. These laws seem to have 
been arranged under the heads of the several magistrates in whose 
province they lay. It may be that prescriptions touching the 
eligibility to the various offices, the method of election to them, 
and other such matters were recorded together with the laws that 
were to be administered by them. 

When Aristotle comes to sum up Solon's most important con- 
tributions to the development of the Athenian democracy,^ it is 
interesting to observe that two of the three are legal rather 
than constitutional enactments. The first is the famous law which 
prohibited the loan of money with the personal liberty of the 
borrower for security. The second is a law granting to any one 
who so desired, the right to bring an action in defense of any per- 
sons who are wronged. This was a powerful blow at the feudal- 
ism which had prevailed in the past. The nobles alone had been 
judges in disputes between citizens, and the nobles alone could 
carry the complaints of their clients before the judicial authori- 
ties. The result of this was that all citizens who were not members 
of the ruling oligarchy were entirely in the hands of their land- 
lords or patrons and were unable to seek redress for their wrongs 
except through their landlords, whether the wrongs proceeded 
from outside sources or from the landlords themselves. The 
third is the right of appeal to the popular court. 

Our ancient authorities have something to say about the dis- 
position of the laws when Solon had completed the formulation 
of them.^ Aristotle says they were inscribed and set up in the 
King's Stoa and that all swore to abide by them ; that the nine 

1 Busolt (1895, p. 48, footnote 1). 2 Const, of Ath. ix. 

3 Const, of Ath. vii ; Plut. Sol. xxv ; Herodotus i 29. 



/ f 



88 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

archons took a solemn oath to set up a statue of gold if the}^ trans- 
gressed any of the laws; and that the laws were ratified for a 
hundred years. Plutarch adds that the council swore that they 
would support the laws ; he attributes the oath of obedience to 
the thesmothetae and not to the archons. Herodotus states that 
the laws were to stand for ten years. 

We are evidently dealing here with traditions for which there 
could be no real evidence. The oath of the archons was inferred 
from a later practice ; ^ and the divergence between ten and a 
hundred years indicates that there was no certain information 
on the subject. 

We can be sure that the laws were inscribed on wood, stone, 
or possibly metal, and set up in some public place where they 
would be accessible to all.^ It is altogether likely that Solon had 
insured a fair trial of his measures by binding the citizens to 
observe them for a certain period, or until they were amended 
according to a definitely prescribed procedure. Beyond this we 
cannot go. 

In modern times Solon is known chiefly as a legislator. His 
legislative activities have so far overshadowed all other circum- 
stances in his life, and have so far obscured the character 
and personality of the man himself, that his very name is in a 
fair way to become, in our popular speech, a common noun mean- 
ing a member of a legislative body. Even among the Greeks them- 
selves, though his other services to Athens were not forgotten, there 
was a tendency to think of him first as the great Athenian law- 
giver. No doubt there is some justice in thus emphasizing his 
work in the codification of Attic law. It may be that this work 
had a more far reaching and abiding influence than anything else 
that he did. But this is not by any means beyond question. 

1 Cf. Const. ofAth. Iv 5. 

2 For ancient opinions concerning the form of the tablets on which the laws 
were inscribed, see Appendix 4. 



THE ARCHONSHIP 89 

His economic reforms and the example of his integrity and of 
his disinterested statesmanship may have meant more to 
Athens, and therefore to the world, than his labors in Athenian 
law. 

If no categorical judgment is hazarded here concerning the 
true merits of the Solonian reforms, this is due to the fear of seem- 
ing to know what is really not known. The opinions of scholars 
range from scant approval to high praise.^ The reason for this 
variation is to be found partly in the diversity of their standards 
of judgment, but still more in the diversity displayed in their 

1 The following may be taken as typical. Wilamowitz (1893, II, 66) says : 
" dass er ein grosser staatsmann gewesen ware, wird sein gewissen geneint haben, 
so gut wie ^\^r es verneinen miissen. und doch hat Aristoteles ihn einen einzigen 
unter alien staatsmannern genannt, der allein das wol des ganzen zur richtschnur 
sich genommen. und doch hat er in der tat die demokratie Athens, wenn auch 
nur als vorlaufer des Kleisthenes, und die athenische poesie, wenn auch nur als 
vorlaufer des Aischylos begrtindet. dass er beides vermochte, dass seine person 
sowol den Drakon wie den Peisistratos, ja noch den Kleisthenes in den schatten 
gestellt hat, das dankt er der Muse, ihn allein von ihnen horte die nachwelt und 
horen auch wir noch. ein grosser dichter war er nicht, aber ein weiser und 
frommer und guter mensch, was denn doch mehr ist." Adler (1896, p. 129) 
takes the opposite view : "Ich glaube im Gegensatz zu diesen Autoritaten (i.e., 
Aristotle and Wilamowitz) die Ansicht verfechten zu miissen, dass Solon — trotz 
seines Idealismus — als wahrhaft genialer Staatsmann anzusehen ist und als sozialer 
Reformator grossen Stils im Gedachtnis aller Zeiten f ortzuleben verdient. Die 
Kritiker haben viel zu sehr jenen augenblicklichen Misserfolg, der zur Aufrich- 
tung der Alleinherrschaft fiihrte, im Auge, wahrend eine tiefer grabende soziolo- 
gische Geschichtsbetrachtung die ganze einzige Kulturentwicklung Athens mit 
der politischen und sozialen Reform Solons in enge Verbindung bringen und ftir 
die fortgesetzten Wirren eine genligende Erklarung herbeischaffen wird. Solon 
war ein grosser Staatsmann : denn er hat die schweren Gebresten der Zeit klar 
erkannt und die Mittel zu ihrer Heilung mit starker und sicherer Hand durch- 
gefiihrt ; seine Massregeln stellen die gewaltigste soziale Reform dar, die jemals 
in der Weltgeschichte auf friedlichem Wege zur Ausf iihrung gelangt ist. Durch 
ihn ist thatsachlich eine wahrhafte Bauernbefreiung grossen Stils durchgeftihrt 
und damit der Grundstein zu der attischen Kultur, wie wir sie kennen, das Fun- 
dament zu Athens klinftiger Grosse gelegt worden . . . Dass aber Solon wirk- 
lich als Schopfer der Grosse Athens, wenn dieser Ausdruck auf eine einzelne 
Person iiberhaupt anwendbar ist, angesehen werden muss, lasst sich beinahe 
strikte beweisen." It is well to add also the wise words of Croiset (1903, 
p. 596) : " Toutefois, I'oeuvre de Solon, oeuvre legislative et po^tique k la fois, 
ne fut pas sterile. Elle resta, dans la vie publique, comme un id^al, que les 
meilleurs citoyeiis aimaient a invoquer et qui leur pretait son autorit^ ; et elle 
devint, dans la vie morale et intellectuelle, comme une source de bonnes pens^es, 
que de grands esprits accrurent peu k peu, et qui, peut-etre, attendent encore 
leur realisation." 



90 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

hypothetical restoration of circumstances for which there is no 
direct historical evidence. Whatever may have been the virtue 
or success of Solon's political acts, the principles and ideals by 
which he was moved in his public career are clear for all to under- 
stand, and, it is to be hoped, for all to admire. 



CHAPTER IV 
AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 



When the strenuous term of Solon's office finally came to an 
end and all the momentous changes which he had planned were 
finally accomplished, he himself felt content with his work. 
''What I promised," he says, ''with the gods' help, I fulfilled."^ 
It may be that his own approval would have been less pronounced 
if he had not been called upon to defend vigorously the measures 
he had adopted. What he has to say in his own support is called 
forth by the hostile criticism which was brought against him from 
all sides. In such a situation it was natural that he should 
emphasize the good in what he had done and be silent about 
the misgivings he may have had concerning his success. 

There was, as a matter of fact, considerable popular dissatis- 
faction.^ Men kept coming to him with inquiries, criticisms, and 
complaints. In general, the rich were angry because his reforms 
cut too deep, the poor because they did not cut deep enough. The 
lower classes had supposed that his professions of moderation 
were insincere and had believed that when he once got the power 
in his hands he would permit them to glut themselves on the good 
things of the rich. The rich on the other hand expected him to 
allay the popular clamor without despoiling them of any of their 
cherished privileges and pleasures. 

These complaints were met by Solon with clear-cut statements 
in his own behalf. As before his archonship he had made pubhc 
1 viii 6. 2 Const of Ath. xi ; Plut. Sol. xxv. 

91 



92 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

his views concerning the needs of the state through the instrumen- 
taUty of verse, so now when he was assailed with criticism he 
adopted a similar means of defense. In a considerable number of 
poems he described and justified the steps he had taken for the 
amelioration of Athenian affairs. Of these poems not a few frag- 
ments remain,^ and, as we have seen, they provide us with our 
best information concerning the nature of his reforms. This 
whole group of poems must have been written and published 
during the first year or two after his archonship, when the issues 
involved were still uppermost in men's minds. He says again 
and again that he had done just what he had said he would do, 
no more and no less. If people had formed false expectations, 
he was not to blame. As a matter of fact, the poor had been 
given more than they could ever have hoped for in their wildest 
dreams ; the rich, if they could only see the magnitude of the 
peril from which the city had been saved with comparatively 
little loss to themselves, would feel unbounded gratitude. ''But 
in great undertakings," says Solon, somewhat wistfully, ''it is 
difficult to please all." ^ It may be that the people had some just 
cause for dissatisfaction. But it is manifest that many, if not 
most, of the complaints which were raised were due to the narrow- 
ness and prejudice of the various groups of citizens ; and though 
we may be disposed to be cautious and to withhold an altogether 
favorable judgment of Solon's work, we must at any rate give 
him our whole-hearted applause for his excellent intentions and 
the unselfishness, moderation, and impartiality with which he 
carried them through. 

Such an attitude as that exhibited by both parties at the close 
of Solon's archonship did not augur well for the future well- 
being of the state. It has been remarked ^ that his ideal of 
Eunomia depended not only on the existence of good laws but 
also on the disposition of the people to obey them loyally and con- 
1 vi-xi. 2 xxiii. » Pp. 66, 67. 



AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 93 

tentedly. The real worth of Solon's institutions could only be 
tested by a patient trial over a number of years. Such a trial 
apparently the people were not ready to give them. At any rate, 
we are told that after an interval of peace lasting for only three 
or four years, party strife was again so violent that a whole year 
passed without the election of an archon.^ A similar period of 
anarchy occurred again a little later. But this continued dis- 
cord does not prove that Solon's work was of no avail. The be- 
neficent effects of the Seisachtheia were not undone ; the written 
code of laws still stood as a cornerstone of future reconciliation ; 
the momentous changes in the direction of popular government 
were not rescinded. It was too much to expect that a single 
year's work would suffice to make over Athenian society and 
appease all the discordant elements. The long history of demo- 
cratic development was only just beginning. Solon no doubt 
suffered disappointment as every champion of popular govern- 
ment must suffer whose ideals run ahead of the ability of the people 
to comprehend and realize them. 



Sooner or later during the years which followed his archon- 
ship Solon made up his mind to leave Athens for a time.^ Ac- 
cording to Aristotle, he announced that he would not return for 
ten years, thinking that he ought not to stay in Athens and ex- 
pound his laws in person, but that the Athenians should simply 
obey them as they were written. It has been supposed that in 
this passage Aristotle was quoting indirectly from some poem in 
which Solon announced his departure and declared the rea- 
sons for it. This is a reasonable conjecture; but after all it is 
only a conjecture, and we cannot be sure that Aristotle had such 
direct evidence for his statements. There can be no question 

1 Const of Ath. xiii. 2 por a discussion of Solon's travv?ls, see Appendix 6. 



94 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

about the fact that Solon went abroad ; but we do not know 
just when he went, whether within a few months or a few 
years of the close of his archonship, nor can we be sure that his 
reasons were those which Aristotle gives. We are not justified, 
therefore, in seeking causes either for praise or for blame in 
his action. We cannot say that Solon was playing the part of 
a coward in abandoning the field, nor can we assert positively 
that he showed real courage in leaving his legislation to prove its 
worth without defense or support from himself. The latter sup- 
position is, indeed, entirely in harmony with his settled policy. It 
was always his aim that the Athenians should live under the 
government of their own laws : he had refused in the past to usurp 
the place of the law by making himself tyrant, and it may well 
be that he refused with equal firmness to serve as a meddlesome 
administrator of a finished code. If the laws were good they 
required no special interpretation in special cases. We should 
be grateful for something more definite than these guesses at fact 
and motive ; but we cannot even be sure that there was any con- 
nection between the effects of Solon's legislation and his deter- 
mination to go abroad for a period of foreign travel. 

Aside from the possible political reasons which induced Solon 
to go abroad, he had two definite personal motives, as our author- 
ities tell us. He went partly on commercial business and partly 
to see the world. Even if the biographers did not learn these 
facts from a poem, they could be easily guessed. Solon's intel- 
lectual curiosity lasted through life, as he tells us himself {yrjpdaKoy 8' 
mVt TToXXa SiSaaKOfxevos) j^ and there would have been much to tempt 
him in foreign travel, even in those days of uncertain and even 
dangerous communication. Moreover, if he was to go at all, 
it was almost necessary that he should provide for his pas- 
sage by some small commercial venture at the same time. Plato 
is said to have carried a cargo of oil when he went to Egypt, 



AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 95 

and it would not be surprising if Solon did the same thing. His 
earlier experiences in trade would stand him in good stead and 
overcome any reluctance he might have in middle life to embark 
in new and untried undertakings. 

How extended his travels were we do not know. It is certain 
that he went to Cyprus, and there is little doubt that he also went 
to Egypt. Visits to Sardis, Miletus, and Cilicia are also recorded, 
but there are excellent reasons for believing that these are legend- 
ary. 

Egypt, to the Greeks, was the Old World. The civilization 
of the Nile had had a continuous existence for more centuries 
than men could count, and in comparison with it the life of the 
Greeks even in the fifth century seemed new and unsettled. 
Egypt was a land of ancient monuments and ancient traditions, 
and in the eyes of the Egyptians the Greeks were but as children 
whose memory ran back only a brief space. Until about the 
middle of the seventh century B.C. this ancient land, like modern 
Japan, had been closed to foreigners. King Psammetichus had 
departed from the customs of the past and thrown open the 
country to foreign traders. Immediately Greek merchants from 
Asia Minor and Aegina began to resort to Egypt in great numbers, 
and it was not long before there was a permanent Greek settle- 
ment, called Naucratis, on the Canobic channel of the Nile. Thus 
there were two attractions for Solon in the land of Egypt at the 
beginning of the sixth century: one was the lure of the ancient 
civilization, the other was the novelty of Egyptian friendliness 
to the outside world. Many Greeks during recent decades must 
have brought back wonderful tales of the newly discovered country 
which was already infinitely old. Such tales were still interesting 
to the Greeks more than a century later when Herodotus in writing 
his history devoted two books to an account of Egyptian history 
and customs. Solon, therefore, desiring to travel, went to Egypt 
as a matter of course. Mesopotamia was remote and inaccessible 



96 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

without great toil ; the Greeks cities of Ionia, and probably Sardis, 
he had visited before. There was nothing in the western Medi- 
terranean but frontier settlements. It was to Egypt that he 
turned without question. 

We know nothing definite of what he did there. He probably 
spent some time at Naucratis, and visited Sais, Heliopolis, and 
other cities of the Delta. Plutarch says he studied for some time 
with the priests in Sais; but this is probably only an inference 
from a famous story which is told by Plato. ^ In the dialogue 
called the Critias, which forms a sequel to the Republic and the 
Timaeus, Critias himself is the principal speaker. This Critias, 
it will be recalled,^ was the great-uncle of Plato, and supposed 
to be a descendant of Solon's brother. In order to fulfill his part 
in the large plan of Plato's tetralogy, Critias makes use of a tale 
about a lost island called Atlantis, which many ages before lay 
far in the western sea and was the home of a powerful state. This 
tale, he tells us, his ancestor Solon had learned from the priests 
in Sais; Solon had related it to the elder Critias, and he, when 
he was an old man of ninety years, had told it to his grandson, 
the younger Critias of the dialogue. Solon is supposed to have 
written down the Greek forms of the Egyptian proper names, 
intending later to compose an epic poem on the subject. He was 
prevented from carrying out his plan by the civil disorder in 
Athens ; but his written notes had come into the hands of Dropides, 
the father of the elder Critias, and having been carefully pre- 
served in the family had passed eventually into the possession 
of the younger Critias and were even now still in existence. 

Now the source of this story has been discovered in Egyptian 
hieroglyphic inscriptions which record the victory of the Egyp- 
tians under Rameses over some powerful people of the west. 

1 Timaeus 20 d ff. ; Critias 113 a. The story is repeated by Plutarch (Sol. 
xxvi ; cf. also Be Is. et Os. 10, p. 354 e) and alluded to by Strabo (ii 102). 

2 See p. 34. 



AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 97 

There is small doubt, however, that it was Plato and not Solon 
who brought back this story from Egypt. The circumstantial 
account of its transmission through the elder Critias is simply a 
graceful bit of fiction designed to serve as a realistic setting for 
the dialogue. There is nothing to be learned from it about 
Solon's experiences in Egypt, and we cannot believe on this kind 
of evidence that he ever entertained the purpose of composing 
an epic poem. 

We can do no more, then, than carry Solon to Egypt and away 
again ; of his sojourn there we know nothing. On his visit to 
Cyprus a slender ray of light is thrown by an extant fragment of 
a poem. In this fragment, which is part of a farewell addressed 
to Philocyprus, the young king of Soli in Cyprus, Solon prays for 
the prosperity of the king and his family and his people, and for 
a safe return for himself to Athens. This seems to indicate that 
Solon came from Egypt to Cyprus and received there a friendly 
and hospitable welcome from Philocyprus, and continued his 
homeward journey with warm expressions of regard at parting. 

3 

It is not to be supposed that Solon's trip abroad marked his 
final retirement from public life. More than thirty years elapsed 
between his archonship and his death. At some time during 
this period (just when we do not know, but probably near the 
beginning) he was away from Athens for an unknown length of 
time. But he must certainly have been living at home for twenty 
or twenty-five years. Even if we had no evidence for the fact, 
we should still be sure in our own minds that public affairs were 
not a matter of indifference to him during all these years. Though 
he took no active part in politics, we should still expect to find him 
giving much thought to it and expressing his opinions in his 
familiar medium of verse. And this is precisely what he did. 
The evidence is slight ; but it is enough perhaps to reveal the 



98 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

nature of the part he played in this period. But before we turn 
to it, there is one small matter which must not be overlooked. 
During the early part of the sixth century trouble had been 
brewing about Delphi, the seat of the oracle of Apollo. This 
locality, which lies on the steep southern slope of Mount Par- 
nassus, was within the domain of the flourishing city of Crisa, 
to the west, which commanded the valley of the Peneus and the 
whole rich plain which stretches down to the Corinthian Gulf. 
Crisa had long been levying tolls on the merchants and mer- 
chandise which passed back and forth under her walls on the long 
journey between the thriving cities of Euboea and their colonies 
in the far west. She had also interfered with pilgrims to the shrine 
of Delphi and committed depredations on the sacred property 
itself. As a result of this, Delphi appealed for aid to the Am- 
phictyonic Council. This ancient organization was the execu- 
tive body of a religious league composed of a group of Greek 
peoples living in the neighborhood of Thermopylae and Delphi, 
who united in the common worship of Demeter at Thermopylae 
and (later at any rate, if not from the beginning) in the adminis- 
tration of the oracle at Delphi. The Athenians were one of the 
constituent peoples and sent one delegate to sit in the Amphictyonic 
Council. When the appeal of the Delphians came to the council 
it was decided, upon the motion of the Athenian delegate, to es- 
pouse the cause of Delphi ; and the Athenian delegate at this 
time was none other than Solon. ^ The war was entirely success- 

1 This statement rests upon fairly direct evidence. Plutarch (Sol. xi) re- 
ports it on the authority of Aristotle's list of the victors in the Pythian jjjames 
(i] Tiov Uv6iopikQv avay pa(t>ri). It is also attested by Aeschines in his speech 
against Ctesiphon (iii 108). J)e Sanctis, however, does not regard the evidence 
as reliable (11)12, p. 2(51): "E per6 incerto quel che afferma Eschuie e Aristotele 
ripete, che la gnerra fu deliberatasu propostadel rappresentante ateniese Solone. 
La testinionianza d'Eschine 6 qui tanto meno degna di fede in quanto un tal 
procedcnte potcva scusare, se non giustificare, il suo modo di comportarsi nella 
pileaautunnalt' del 340, (juando propose la guerra sacra contro Anfissa. E ris- 
petto alia testiinonanza d'Aristotele, la scoperta della Repubblica ateniese ha 
diniostrato che buona parte delle asserzioni storiche dello Stagirita non e fondata 
sui documenti come prima in generale si credeva ; onde ben pu6 darsi che egli 



AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 99 

ful ; the city of Crisa was blotted out of existence and the broad 
plain below was made sacred to Apollo for all time. The Pythian 
games, too, were instituted in celebration of the victory and were 
held every four years thereafter. The date of the fall of Crisa 
has been much disputed. It may have been 590 or 586 or even 
later. We do not know how long the war lasted. Consequently 
the date of the session of the council at which Solon was present 
is quite beyond our reach. It may have been within the decade 
after his archonship ; it may even have been before the archon- 
ship; and it may have been either before or after his sojourn 
abroad. The whole matter would no doubt be interesting and 
important enough if we had sufficient material for a full and 
orderly biography. But, as things are, we can do no more than 
mention this single unrelated circumstance and leave it without 
comment. How much distinction the office of delegate to the 
Amphictyonic Council carried with it; whether the Delphian 
issue caused any serious debate; whether Solon took an active 
part in it or not : such questions as these, which contain the 
gist of the matter, cannot be answered. 



In the domestic affairs of Athens, to come now to what must 
be the closing scene in Solon's life, we find that the old question 
of the tyranny was one of the things which occupied his attention. 
This much we know from extant fragments of his poems. ^ More 
than one aspiring politician essayed to make himself tyrant of 
Athens, and Solon stoutly opposed them. He rebuked the people 

abbia accolto una tradizione o un' invenzione diffusa ad arte da Eschine o da' suoi 
amici per coonestare cio che avevano operate in Delfi con poco riguardo agP in- 
teressi della patria." On the Amphictyonic Council, the Sacred War, and 
Solon's part therein, see Busolt (1893, pp. 672 ff., especially p. 693) and Wila^ 
mowitz (1893, I, 10 ff.). 

1 xiii and xiv. For a discussion of Solon's activities during this period and 
his relations with Pisistratus see Appendix 7. 



100 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

sharply for their folly in allowing themselves to be deceived by 
these specious individuals, and warned them against resigning 
to them so much power that there would be no further hope of 
recovering their liberties. Who these pretenders to a tyrant's 
throne were, we do not know. But we find Solon maintaining 
his principles with the same resolution and giving public expres- 
sion to them with the same vigor and fearlessness as in the past. 
It is easy to believe that in the unsettled years which, according 
to Aristotle, followed Solon's archonship there should have been 
many abortive attempts at the tyranny. 

In the end, thirty-two years after the archonship of Solon, the 
thing happened which was diametrically opposed to Solon's 
political ideals.^ A tyranny was finally established in Athens. 
What Solon had steadfastly refused for himself was won by an- 
other through clever intrigue. Pisistratus was the man who 
finally made himself master of Athens. There are picturesque 
legends of Solon's efforts to prevent his usurpation, but they are 
not to be accepted as historical. The fact, however, that Solon 
did oppose Pisistratus' s machinations cannot be doubted for a 
moment. He had unmasked similar plots in the past, and it is 
not likely that Pisistratus was clever enough to deceive him even 
at his advanced age. But whatever Solon may have said or done, 
his efforts were unavailing. Pisistratus became tyrant of Athens. 
And in this high position, it must be confessed, he conducted him- 
self with great moderation and accomplished much for the glory 
of the city. Nothing would be more profitable than a detailed 
comparison of the ideals and achievements of these two men if 
we only had sufficient evidence for it. The one was a champion 
of free institutions, but his plans did not lead apparently to the 

1 De Sanctis (1912, pp. 257 ff.), in a page of criticism on the value of Colon's 
constitutional reforms, attributes the failure of the constitution to the lack of a 
strong central power. He betrays some disapproval of what he regards as 
Solon's weakness, and some admiration for the strong government of Pisistratus. 
So those who admire Caesar condemn Cicero. 



AFTER THE ARCHONSHIP 101 

immediate demonstrable success of political calm and material 
well-being; the other was a benevolent autocrat who developed 
the resources and power of the state. It is a contrast which 
tries one's faith in democracy. And yet in later times Solon was 
looked upon as the founder of all that the Athenians cherished 
most ; while Pisistratus and his sons were thought of with hatred 
and reprobation. Conditions in the sixth century were not right 
for a fair trial of the comparative merits of autocracy and de- 
mocracy. The people were only just emerging from a state of 
feudal subservience ; they were ignorant and unprepared for the 
duties and responsibilities of self-government. Athens like other 
Greek states had to pass out of the old order by the way of the 
popular tyranny. She was fortunate in having a wise and benev- 
olent despot. But it was no small thing that the principles of 
democracy had been enunciated with so much clearness and force 
at the beginning. These principles were never forgotten, and 
ultimately they bore fruit. The marvelous thing is that at so 
early a day, in the midst of the corruption of a declining aris- 
tocracy and the ignorance of an unintelligent populace, Solon 
should have discerned with such clear insight and maintained 
with such resolute faith the true principle of equality before 
the law. He was as one born out of due time, and his true 
worth could not be understood until men had grown to his 
stature. 

There is something melancholy and depressing about the cir- 
cumstance that in the last days of his life Solon should have seen 
the triumph of the thing against which he had struggled so val- 
iantly, both when it came as a temptation to himself and when 
it came as a menace from other men. But it serves at the same 
time to throw into sharper relief what we must have recognized 
as the chief ornament of his character. The unselfishness and 
perseverance with which he struggled to hold the people free from 
the domination of lawless masters, even though he could himself 



102 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

have been the master, are enough to merit our high regard ; and 
if his legislation and the instigation of his own example and of 
his inspiring precepts did not immediately avail to realize for 
Athens his noble ideal, we should not be blinded by this to the 
true worth of the man.^ 

1 For the traditions concerning Solon's death and burial, see Appendix 8. 



CHAPTER V 
THE POEMS 



The life of Solon, as we have seen, was known to the ancients 
and is known to us only through his poems. In tracing the events 
of his career we have been listening constantly to his voice; or, 
when his own voice can be heard no longer, we have learned some- 
times from the ancient biographers something of what he had 
said. The character of many of the poems, whose very subjects 
were drawn from the circumstances of the time, has facilitated 
this use of them. But it is not right to treat them solely as his- 
torical documents. We must now come to them with the wider 
appreciation and criticism which are the due of poetry.^ We must 
search them for the thoughts and the emotions of their author; 
we must discern the artistic skill with which he has expressed 
these thoughts and emotions in measured language. For Solon 
was a life-long poet. Not that poetry was his chief business. 
He seems to have turned to the Muses partly for amusement in 
his lighter hours, partly for aid in the sterner tasks which he 
undertook for the good of Athens. But they responded to him 
with their favor, even though he refused to give his whole heart 
to them. Plato ^ represents an admirer of Solon declaring that 
if he had chosen to devote himself wholly to poetry he might even 
have rivaled the great masters. But this was no doubt a partial 
critic ; and it does little good to conjecture what Solon would have 
accomplished if he had not been the man he was. He had a 

1 On the poems, see also pp. 7-13. 2 Timaeus 21 c. 

103 



104 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

genuine poetical gift, but he chose to use it mostly in moral 
exhortations and political pamphlets. An Anacreon must make 
amends for the laxity of his morals by the exquisite purity of his 
art ; Solon atones for the occasional prosaic quality of his verse 
by the nobility of his character and his unselfish devotion to the 
public weal. 

We must recognize at the start that in attempting a criticism 
of Solon's poetry we are beset by the difficulty which arises from 
the fragmentary character of the remains, and by the danger of 
drawing general conclusions from material which comprises only 
a fraction of his whole work. There is always a temptation to 
find a larger significance in isolated lines than would be justified 
by the whole poem if we had it before us. Fortunately among 
the extant fragments there are, as we have seen, three which from 
their greater length hold out the promise of a better understand- 
ing of Solon's art. It is safe to say that they exhibit the develop- 
ment of his thought during the most active years of his life. We 
do not know whether they were really the longest of his poems, 
but for us they are the most significant. We cannot do better, 
therefore, than to begin our account of his ideas and his art by a 
somewhat detailed study of these three poems. 

There can be little doubt that the order in which these poems 
are here discussed is also the order in which they were composed. 
The sentiments expressed in the longest of the three are such as 
to lead us to assign it to the earlier half of Solon's life, before his 
archonship, when he was especially distrustful of the rich.^ It 

1 Cf. Croiset (1903, p. 583): "line semble pas douteux qu'elle n'appar- 
tienne k la premiere partie de sa vie. La politique ii'y tient encore aucune 
place : Tauteur est manifestement Stranger aux preoccupations qui devaient, plus 
tard, Tabsorber tout entier . . . il s'agissait d'orienter sa vie. Plus tard, elle 
(la question: Est-il desirable de s'enrichir/) lui aurait paru oiseuse et peu digne 
de son attention.'" Wilamowitz (1893, II, 314) regards the poem as a work of 
Solon's old age, though he seems to have no evidence for this conclusion except 
what he regards as an old man's spirit pervading the piece : " jenes wunderbare 
gedicht, in dem der frouime des lebens und des strebeiLS summe zieht, will ich 
hier nicht erlautern. das wiirde zu viel worte fordern, denn es ist nicht leicht, 



THE POEMS 105 

must have been written at a time when he was interested in general 
moral questions and had not yet become involved in the particular 
difficulties of Athens which were his business during his term of 
office. The stage of growing interest in public affairs is marked 
by the second longest elegiac poem. It was in the third stage, 
after the archonship, that the longest iambic poem was composed 
as a defense of his actions in office.^ 

The elegiac poem preserved by Stobaeus is,^ with a single 
exception, the longest Greek poem which has survived from the 
period which intervened between the age of epic composition 
and the beginning of the fifth century. It is nearly twice as long 
as the next longest fragment of Solon. It affords us a welcome 
opportunity to study, in a more extended expression, his character- 
istic ideas, and to judge his poetical powers as they are exhibited 
in a more sustained effort. 

A multitude of questions present themselves to the reader of 
this poem, some touching its proper interpretation, others touch- 
ing the correct estimation of its literary and philosophical worth. 
An attempt to answer such questions must, of course, proceed 
from interpretation to criticism ; we must be sure we understand 
before we presume to praise or blame. Let us consider, then, 
first, what Solon actually says. 

falls man mehr als einzelne disticha verstehen will, dem modernen aber wird es 
sauer, von allem rhetorischen disponiren abzusehen, auch von alien den ktinsten 
der Kallimachos und Properz und Ovid, und sich zutraulich vor die knie des 
alten zu setzen und seiner Muse zu lauschen, die ihn nach greisenart bald hierhin, 
bald dahin lockt, aber immer wieder in die bahn zuriickf iihrt, die ihm die alles 
beherrschende empfindung weist. ' mensch, lerne, dass es mit unserer macht 
nicht getan ist, und dass der gott, der deine geschicke lenkt, wie es ihn beliebt, 
einmal abrechnung halt : mensch, lerne dich bescheiden.' zum verstandnis des 
baues hilft Tibull, der an der achten elegie gelernt hat ; bequemer noch hilft 
Goethe." 

1 Croiset (1903), in an admirable and most suggestive essay, describes the 
change in Solon's moral attitude which is displayed in the poems composed in 
the three periods of his life. The real subject of the essay is the development of 
moral ideas through the experiences and trials of the whole community, as it Is 
illustrated in Solon's poems. 

2x1. 



106 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

The poem opens with an address to the Muses, which takes 
the form of a prayer. Solon prays that the Muses will grant him 
certain blessings which he evidently regards as essential to human 
happiness. He makes no appeal for poetical inspiration. He 
turns to the Muses to ask for things which were generally thought 
to be bestowed by Zeus or some other of the greater gods. The 
address, therefore, is different from that at the beginning of the 
Iliad or the Odyssey. Is it merely a literary form, or is it a sincere 
expression of faith in the power of the Muses to grant the boon 
which was asked? Certainly it was mostly the latter; but, per- 
haps, at the same time a little of the former. Though Solon does 
not say explicitly, in the manner of the Homeric hymn-writers, 
that he takes his beginning from the goddesses, yet unquestion- 
ably the solemn apostrophe is an open avowal that the poet is 
acting under their inspiration. He must have believed that he 
enjoyed an unusually intimate relation with these divinities, if 
he was moved to turn to them for aid in the general conduct of 
his life ; poetry and the works of the Muses must have played a 
large part in his life ; he must have felt that in some very special 
sense he lived under their patronage and protection ; during the 
period in which this elegy was written, at any rate, poetry must 
have been something more to him than a pastime for idle hours. 

What does he desire at the Muses' hands? Two things, of 
which one must come from the gods, the other from men. The 
first is happiness, especially the happiness which is produced by 
comfortable resources ; .the second is a good name among men. 
It is curious to observe that both these things, which the modern 
world regards as the achievement of a man's own endeavors, are 
thought of by Solon as unattainable without external aid. We 
shall see later that the principal thesis of the poem is implicit in 
this conception. 

There is a corollary to the main petition. If he enjoys pros- 
perity and a fair esteem, he expects to be in a position to help 



THE POEMS 107 

his friends and harm his enemies, returning good for good and 
evil for evil. This desire is expressed openly and without shame 
and was not in any way repugnant to the Greek moral sense. 

The prayer is complete in six lines. It would be hazardous 
to assume that Solon is trying to state in this brief space the com- 
plete formula for human life. But the lines are evidently care- 
fully phrased to give a fairly comprehensive definition of Solon's 
ethical position ; and when we come to review these lines after 
studying the rest of the poem, we are surprised to discover that 
there is latent in them a fundamental article of Hellenic faith. 

After the first six lines, instead of petitions addressed to the 
Muses, we find direct statements of fact and opinion concerning 
various circumstances of human life. Solon is simply writing 
down his own reflections in elegiac verse, aided, no doubt, by 
the inspiration of the Muses, but no longer speaking to them 
directly. 

It is immediately apparent even to a hasty reader of the poem 
that the mind of the author is much occupied with the question 
of money and its influence on human life and character. That 
this should have been a matter of great concern to him is not 
surprising when we recall the abuses which prevailed in Athens 
in the seventh century. Thoughtful men of the day must indeed 
have believed that the love of money is the root of all evil. In- 
stinctively, therefore, having prayed for happiness and pros- 
perity, Solon is moved to define his position in the matter of money, 
which is indispensable in that form of happiness for which he has 
prayed. Without hesitation he proclaims frankly that he does 
desire money. But there are two ways of getting it : a man may 
get it justly and through the gift of heaven, or he may get it un- 
justly and contrary to the will of heaven. Of money got in the 
latter way Solon will have none ; the former is safe and sure. 
There seems to be no doubt in his mind that heaven smiles upon 
justice and frowns upon injustice. To say that a man's wealth 



108 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

has been won through just means is the same as to say that it 
has been given him by the gods ; and, conversely, unjust methods 
in the pursuit of riches will inevitably bring upon the offender the 
enmity of heaven. 

Solon says little of the financial fortunes of the just man. 
Two lines suffice for this. But he describes in some detail the 
operation of the punishment which overtakes the unjust money- 
getter. If a man grows rich through unjust means, he soon be- 
comes afflicted with that mental disorder which the Greeks called 
aTTj ; he becomes blind to the truth about himself and the world 
in which he lives ; he miscalculates his own powers in relation 
to the power of the gods; he grows headstrong and reckless; 
he loses the regulating force of reason and sound sense. The 
disease is slight at the start, but rapidly grows worse. The 
victim's behavior becomes more and more wild, more and more 
outrageous, and final and ultimate disaster is not long delayed. 
What the actual punishment is, we are not told. 

It would seem as if Solon were describing a course of events 
in which one circumstance follows another by the impersonal 
law of cause and effect. But it is not so that he conceives the 
matter. The whole affair is the work of Zeus, who uses the opera- 
tions of nature as the means of accomplishing his own will. The 
eye of Zeus is upon the culprit from the very beginning, and when 
the proper time comes he strikes. 

But there is an objection which can be raised to the truth 
of this moral law. It is a matter of common observation that 
sinners are not always overtaken by the consequences of their 
guilt. They sometimes enjoy their ill gotten gains in peace and 
go down untroubled to the grave. How is this to be explained? 
Not by maintaining that punishment awaits the guilty wretch 
in the life after death ; this doctrine of the Orphic sect had not 
yet become current in the Greek world. To Solon, as to the 
Hebrew lawgiver, it seemed that the unexpiated sins of the fathers 



THE POEMS 109 

were visited upon the innocent children of succeeding genera- 
tions. Early or late the blow is bound to fall.^ 

At this point Solon's reflections take a wider sweep. He has 
traced the operation of the moral law in the matter of the ac- 
quisition of wealth. And the law is that men's endeavors must 
conform to the will of the gods. Happiness and success will 
attend him who acquiesces in their rule ; downfall and failure 
is the portion of all who run athwart their will. But in the mad 
rush of money-making men forget this law ; they forget the in- 
exorable power of the gods ; they believe that they can do as they 
will with their own ; they live without god in the world. But 
are they alone in this ? Solon looks out upon the world and finds 
that men of every walk in life are guilty of this same forgetful- 
ness. They are blind to things as they are. They struggle and 
strive and fret, heedless of the certain truth that the outcome of 
their efforts lies with the gods alone. Solon leads before us in 
review the various trades and professions, and shows us the world 
bustling over its affairs, oblivious of its impotence. Toil as they 
will, men will receive no more and no less than the gods will give. 

As he contemplates the spectacle of human fortunes, Solon 
is led to assume a more pessimistic attitude. Men are not always 
to blame, after all, if they fail. They move forward into the 
darkness of the future, danger besets them on every side, they 
cannot know the proper course. One man, who strives to live 
well according to his lights, comes to grief ; while the gods shower 
their favors upon another who offends against every standard of 
human conduct. 

But though Solon fails to discover the divine law that governs 
the world at large, he feels confident about one portion of ethical 

1 Girard (1869, p. 203), after quoting this portion of the poem, says : " Voil^ 
dans sa sinc^rite le sentiment paien, nullement d^tach^ de la vie r^elle, amoureux 
des biens qu'elle comporte, mettant dans le nombre les biens d'opinion et meme, 
puisqu'il faut avoir des ennemis, le plaisir d'etre redouts par les siens, mais se 
repr^sentant sous une grande image la justice divine et en adorant avec soumis- 
sion la sanction n^cessaire jusque dans ses effets les plus impitoyables. " 



110 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

theory. Returning to the subject which occupies the earUer 
part of the poem, he repeats, in different words, his account of 
the course which is inevitably followed when a man is smitten 
with the lust for mone^^ But, this time, there is no distinction 
between honest and dishonest riches. Wealth itself, though it is 
given by the gods, is a poison which works subtly in the system 
and brings about moral dissolution in the end. With these ob- 
servations the poem comes to a close. 

In this poem Solon does not present a consistent philosophy 
nor an adequate solution of the riddle of human life. He does not 
even attempt to do this. There are certain tacit assumptions in 
his mind which serve as points of rest in his reflections upon the 
fortunes of men. These assumptions we fairly recognize as the 
commonly accepted creed of the day. If we try to formulate 
this creed, we shall be better able to estimate the originality and 
independence of Solon's own thought. 

The efforts of men in the world are properly directed to the 
attainment of their own happiness. They are restrained, however, 
by certain moral principles from complete liberty of action : 
some actions are good, some are bad, and abiding happiness can- 
not be secured through methods which are discountenanced by 
society. But aside from this negative restriction, men must 
steer their way through life without a compass. The sovereign 
control over their fortunes Ues with Zeus and the hierarchy of 
the gods. Mortals cannot know the mind of the gods nor the 
ultimate outcome of any course of action. Undoubtedly the 
gods frown upon behavior which is reprobated by men ; that is, 
the divine government follows the moral laws which are recog- 
nized by humanity. But this tenet in the creed demands a robust 
faith, and men are constantly baffled by the inscrutability of 
divine purposes. One thing alone is certain : men must take what 
the gods send. By an exercise of faith they may believe that 
the rule of the gods is wise and regular and consistent, and that 



THE POEMS 111 

man's problem is to discover the wisdom and regularity of their 
rule, and to order his life in harmony therewith. But in general 
we may suppose that the harmony of divine purposes was beyond 
the sight of most Greeks of that time, and that they recognized 
higher powers who, though they might be benevolent, were largely 
capricious. 

This is a fair statement of the common Greek view of life so 
far as it is presented in this poem. Does Solon make any modifica- 
tion in these current opinions, or any addition to them? I should 
say that he does not. He exhibits the normal attitude of pious 
perplexity. He makes no penetrating study of the problem of 
human destiny; he proposes no substitute for the time-honored 
rule of unresisting acquiescence to the decrees of heaven ; he 
reaffirms the helpless dependence of humanity. The poem, I 
repeat, was not written to present a new philosophy of life. 
What then can we regard as the essential thing for which the 
poem was written? 

The moving impulse, I take it, which prompted Solon to write 
the poem was the desire to set forth the results of his observation 
on the moral effects of riches and the acquisition of riches. He 
had, in his mercantile career, abundant opportunity to watch 
the results of the passionate money -making of the day. He had 
formed certain definite opinions concerning the inevitable moral 
degradation which seemed to him to attend that form of activity. 
These opinions he imparts to us in no uncertain language, and he 
reveals the depth of his studj^ by the poetical fervor of his ex- 
pression. On this matter he speaks with the energy and convic- 
tion of a Hebrew prophet. But he does not confine himself to 
this single ethical problem. He is led by it to a discussion of the 
larger topic of human helplessness. Unquestionably the moral 
vigor of the poem is impaired thereby; he himself feels the in- 
stability of the opinions which he expresses in the second part 
of the poem, and returns at the end to the sure ground of his 



112 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

special theme which he has worked out thoroughly. But though 
there may be a loss in moral vigor, we cannot but admire the lively 
picture of the world at work which he paints in the second half 
of the poem. 

Is the poem complete as we have it? Of this there is little 
doubt. We have evidence in Clement of Alexandria to show that 
the poem actually began with the verse which stands first in 
Stobaeus's quotation.^ And though there is no positive evidence 
for the end, it is not unreasonable to believe that we have the 
closing lines. The theme is completely developed and the poet 
recurs at the end to the subject which occupied him at the begin- 
ning. For a moral discourse, the poem is long enough ; more could 
easily be added to a composition so loose in texture, but one feels 
that there would be genuine loss if the poem were further protracted. 

There has been some difference of opinion concerning the merit 
of the poem.2 Some have found in it nothing but an aggrega- 
tion of disjointed scraps; others have regarded it as a splendid 
work of genius. As a matter of fact it is not a splendid work of 
genius, and there is some excuse for the charge that it is an aggre- 
gation. The habit of sententious utterance which is incident to 
the composition of elegiac verse, and a certain abruptness of 
transition give one the impression of a work which, as Solon him- 

1 See commentary on vs. 1. 

2 Bernhardy (Griech. Lit. H, 357) expressed his disapproval in these words : 
"Eln eigenthiimUches aggregat Hegt in fr. 5 (=12 Bergk = xl) vor, welches 
erstlich fremdartige, durch kuhlern ton gezeichnete schlusssatze aus Theognis 
empfangen hat, denn durch die matten distichen 39-42 verwassert ist ; endlich 
fordert der znsammenhang, dass v. 37. 38 vor 59 eingeschoben werden." Schnei- 
dewin (1848, p. 110) came to the poet's defeiLse, and spoke of the "einfach 
schoner gedankengang des herrlichen gedichts." He finds the closing lines of 
the poem highly appropriate, and does not admit for a moment that they were 
composed by Theognis. Furthermore, he believes the poem to be complete. 
Leutsch (1872) brings forward evidence to show that this was one of the poems 
of Solon which became famous early, but he maintains that poetically it is one 
of the least successful. He charges especially that the exposition is incomplete. 
Rost, on the other hand, asserts (1884) that it belongs "zu dem hervorragend- 
sten . . . was Solon als dichter geschaffen hat, mid uns den geist desselben be- 
sonders getreu abspiegelt." For Wilamowitz's opinion, see p. 104, foot- 
note 1. 



THE POEMS 113 

self might say, is not c/xttcSos ck vcarov Trvdfxivoq h Kopv<f)T]v} At 

the same time, it unquestionably springs from a single impulse 
and possesses a genuine unity of conception. This, I trust, has 
been made clear in the analysis of the thought which has already 
been given. 

The poem is not a work of profound inspiration. It is not 
characterized by deep poetical feeUng or bold imagination; nor 
does it contain moral and philosophical views of great weight or 
originality. Nevertheless, it is an entirely meritorious perform- 
ance. It is well written ; it exhibits a power of trenchant ut- 
terance; it is graced by truly Hellenic balance of phrase; it 
reveals a ready instinct for metaphor and personification ; and 
above all, it includes an extended simile of great beauty, of which 
even Homer would not be ashamed. We may justly be grateful 
to Stobaeus for its preservation, both because of its own intrinsic 
worth, and because it is one of the most important documents 
for the history of Greek ethical thought in the sixth century. 

The next longest of Solon's poems, the elegy quoted by De- 
mosthenes to shame his rival Aeschines with a picture of the 
sturdy morality of the first Athenian statesman, forms a striking 
sequel to the poem which has just been discussed. In the first 
of the two poems Solon gives utterance to broad philosophical 
reflections without any particular application of them. It is an 
exposition of his theory concerning the curse of riches. There 
is nothing to indicate that the poem is a result of his observations 
in Athens alone. In the second poem he comes directly to the 
state of affairs in Athens and shows how the theory which he had 
previously expounded finds practical appUcation within his own 
unhappy city. 

1 Wilamowitz (1913, p. 257) attributes the diflBculty of interpretation to the 
paratactie structure and the absence of illuminating particles. " Dass die Fahig- 
keit zu denken," he says (p. 258), "der Ausdrucksfahigkeit so weit voraus ist 
(was die Erga des Hesiodos ebenfalls so schwer macht) erhoht den Reiz dieser 
Erstlingsfriichte moraliscber Dialektik." 



114 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Athens is threatened with impending ruin. But, saj^s Solon, 
the gods are not to blame ; Athena is faithful and just in her 
devotion. The responsibility lies with the men of Athens them- 
selves. Avarice and greed, and the moral degradation which 
they entail, are bringing the state to destruction. Thereupon 
Solon describes with burning indignation the rapacity of the rich 
and the sufferings of the poor. It is not a question of abstract 
ethics now, but an appalling reality which he sets before the reader. 
And he has discovered, he thinks, both the cause and the cure. 

The poem was written with the definite purpose of urging 
upon the Athenians the only remedy which would restore the 
health of society. Lawlessness is the cause of the mischief and 
a law-abiding spirit will be its cure. He proclaims with great 
eloquence the virtues of Eunomia as a panacea for the evils which 
afflict the state. The poem is not a querulous lament over an 
inevitable decline. It offers a constructive policy which will 
lead to better things. His program includes the recognition of 
sound laws, both moral and civil, equitable administration of 
them, and loyal obedience to them. It may seem as if Solon's 
recommendations were still vague and intangible.' But we 
know that he made proposals definite and concrete enough to 
lead to his appointment as dictator. Meanwhile in the present 
poem he enunciated the broad policy which should be the guide 
in the reconstruction of society. 

This poem is more forcible and vigorous and better constructed 
than the first. Here there is no doubt and uncertainty in the 
reader's mind. The thought proceeds by logical steps from the 
beginning to the end. The philosopher is now the statesman 
but still the poet. Passing from the universality of ^Urj, he 
now preaches the practical expedient of No/aos. 

The third poem of the group shows Solon in the midst of his 
work, putting into practice the principles which he had pro- 
claimed in the second. Dictator of Athens, he had had the 



THE POEMS 115 

opportunity to right the wrongs which he had described with so 
much energy. This he claims to have done. There is no place 
now for philosophical reflection. In terse iambic meter, in con- 
crete and vigorous language, he recounts the steps he has taken 
for the amelioration of Athenian affairs. Poetic imagination does 
not fail him : he can still conceive of the august figure of Aikt; as 
a witness at the bar of time. And he writes with an assured 
mastery of composition. But the contrast in tone and spirit 
between the first long elegy and this later iambic poem is striking 
enough. This later style, as far as we can see from the extant 
poems, is most characteristic of Solon. The intimate associa- 
tion between his poetry and the public life of Athens is the thing 
which chiefly distinguishes him from the other elegists who wrote 
of human fortunes in general.^ 



Though Solon did not fail to observe the essential unhappiness 
of human life, he did not yield to the despair of the pessimist. 
He felt that there was a way in which men could adjust themselves 
to their environment so as to save themselves from much of the 
suffering with which they were afflicted. Lack of wisdom, of 
intelligence, of foresight, of self-control, he believed to lie at the 
bottom of human unhappiness. Men failed to see things as they 
were. They were themselves to blame for much of their suffering. 
Others laid the blame for human suffering and the injustice which 
prevails in the world on the gods. Some, like Theognis, cried out 
bitterly against the capricious cruelty of the gods. Not so Solon. 
He did not, indeed, make the rash boast that he had discovered 
the divine purpose which guides the action of the gods. The 

1 Girard (1869, p. 190), speaking of the martial elegies of Tyrtaeus and the 
political poems of Solon, observes: "Quel fait inouT dans I'histoire ! et quel 
peuple que celui ou cet art d' imagination, que la civilisation des ages suivants 
devait releguer parmi les jouissances litt^raires, se retrouve ainsi a deux si6cles 
d'intervalle comme I'arme la meilleure du patriotisme ! " 



116 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

will of the gods is inscrutable, and their ways are past finding out. 
But Solon had faith to believe that the gods are just. Their 
workings are long and slow; they alone can discern the end. 
Man's condemnation of the gods is due to hasty judgment of un- 
completed work. The gods sometimes let men have their way 
for a space, and then men blame the gods for the results of their 
own folly. The mind of Zeus is not quick to wrath for each offense. 
But sooner or later punishment comes for transgression. Since 
it is only too evident that punishment does not always come within 
the lifetime of the transgressor, Solon, like the author of the 
Hebrew decalogue, found the explanation in the fact that children 
suffer for the sins of their fathers. Everywhere he shows full 
respect for the gods, and the gods are the ancient gods of the 
Greeks. There is no allusion in his poems to the crude and worldly 
myths which were attached to their names. How Solon was 
affected by these tales we have no way of knowing. The gods 
whom he knows are omnipotent, inscrutable, just, scarcely per- 
sonal. There is no evidence that he had passed through the 
travail of religious doubt in order to reach this pure conception, 
stripped as it was of popular absurdities. Pindar, Aeschylus, 
and Euripides were going to find perplexities enough. But 
Solon seems to have held instinctively a dignified faith and not 
to have troubled his head over the puzzles of theology. 

Human error springs from ignorance and folly. Failing to 
discern the incontrovertible order of things, men refuse to ac- 
quiesce in their own drab existence. What the gods give, they 
refuse, and they seek something different from what destiny has 
allotted them. They are stirred with hopes which they them- 
selves have no power to fulfill. They defy the established prin- 
ciples of society, sanctioned alike by gods and men. Spoiled by 
success, they yield to temptation, defy the law, and seize ruth- 
lessly whatever they desire. One form of error is mere passive 
stupidity ; the other is active defiance of the law of moderation : 



THE POEMS 117 

but both alike are folly. The common path of moral degenera- 
tion leads from extravagance and excess, through insolence and 
arrogance, to madness and infatuation. One can save himself 
from this headlong descent only by moderation and self-control. 
The path of righteousness is indeed a strait and narrow path : 
on the one side are the dangers of a stunted existence, on the other 
the dangers of excess. Between the two, man can be saved only 
by the guiding principle of moderation and self-control. Solon 
held to this principle consistently throughout. In his earlier 
years he emphasized the evils of extravagance and avarice and 
the disaster which results from them; after his archonship he 
thought more of the folly of stupidity. But it was always d<f>po(Tvvrj 
which lay at the root of Athenian troubles. 

As men are led into error by folly, so they are saved from 
error by wisdom. Salvation comes by ckXvo-is a<f>poavv7}<;. Through 
wisdom men can understand their own powers and limitations; 
they can understand the orderly course of the universe and see 
that it may not be safely transgressed ; wisdom will not, indeed, 
assure them happiness ; but it will assure them the largest measure 
of happiness which the gods and fate will allow. With this they 
must be content. Any effort to force an increase is presumption 
and leads to moral decline and eventually to ruin. Men may 
strive for all good things so long as they conduct themselves in 
accordance with the divinely appointed order. In this way they 
will win the approval of the gods and the praise of men. Dis- 
obedience to the moral law, dStKta, is inevitably punished by the 
higher powers. 

In the famous interview between Solon and Croesus, Herod- 
otus put into the mouth of Solon a speech which reads like a 
paraphrase of Solon's philosophical opinions. He must have 
borrowed directly from the poems the ideas of which the speech 
is composed. The sources of many of them can still be seen in 
the extant fragments ; others he may have drawn from poems 



118 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

which are now lost. It seems fair to suppose that the speech is 
something in the nature of an informal summary of Solon's doc- 
trine as Herodotus found it in his own poems, and, as a summary, 
we cannot afford to overlook it : ^ 

Oh! Croesus, thou askedst a question concerning the condition of 
man, of one who knows that the power above us is full of jealousy, and 
fond of troubUng our lot. A long hfe gives one to witness much, and 
experience much oneself, that one would not choose. Seventy years 
I regard as the limit of the life of man. In these seventy years are con- 
tained, without reckoning intercalary months, twenty-five thousand 
and two hundred days. Add an intercalary month to every other year, 
that the seasons may come round at the right time, and there will be 
besides the seventy years, thirty-five such months, making an addition 
of one thousand and fifty days. The whole number of the days contained 
in the seventy years wiU thus be twenty-six thousand two hundred and 
fifty, whereof not one but will produce events unlike the rest. Hence 
man is wholly accident. For thyself, oh! Croesus, I see that thou art 
wonderfully rich, and art the lord of many nations ; but with respect to 
that whereon thou questionest me, I have no answer to give, until 1 
hear that thou hast closed thy life happily. For assuredly he who pos- 
sesses great store of riches is no nearer happiness than he who has what 
suffices for his daily needs, unless it so hap that luck attend upon him, 
and so he continue in the enjoyment of all his good things to the end of 
life. For many of the wealthiest men have been unfavoured of fortune, 
and many whose means were moderate have had excellent luck. Men of 
the former class excel those of the latter but in two respects ; these last 
excel the former in many. The wealthy man is better able to content 
his desires, and to bear up against a sudden buffet of calamity. The 
other has less ability to withstand these evils (from which, however, 
his good luck keeps him clear), but he enjoys all these following blessings : 
he is whole of hmb, a stranger to disease, free from misfortune, happy in 
his children, and comely to look upon. If, in addition to all this, he end 
his hfe well, he is of a truth the man of whom thou art in search, the man 
who may rightly be termed happy. Call him, however, until he die, 
not happy but fortunate. Scarcely, indeed, can any man unite all these 
advantages : as there is no country which contains Avithin it all that it 
needs, but each, while it possesses some things, lacks others, and the best 
country is that which contains the most ; so no single human being is 
complete in every respect — something is always lacking. He who 

1 Herodotus i 32 (Rawlinson's translation). 



THE POEMS 119 

unites the greatest number of advantages, and retaining them to the day 
of his death, then dies peaceably, that man alone, sire, is, in my judgment, 
entitled to bear the name of "happy." Buc in every matter it behooves 
us to mark well the end : for oftentimes God gives men a gleam of hap- 
piness, and then plunges them into ruin. 

In this speech there seems to be only one false note, and that 
is at the very beginning. There is nothing in the poetry of 
Solon which we still possess to justify us in believing that he 
regarded the power above us as ''full of jealousy and fond of 
troubling our lot." He may have entertained this belief; but 
there is something in it repugnant to the general conception of 
the world and of the gods which is revealed in the poems. It 
seems far more likely that Herodotus himself, consciously or un- 
consciously, imported into his paraphrase of Solon's thought, 
the idea which is so characteristic of his own philosophy. He 
attributed to Solon, says Plutarch,^ his own view concerning the 
nature of the gods. But with this exception, the resemblance 
between the speech in Herodotus and Solon's own poems will 
be manifest to all. 

On the model of the orderly universe and contented human 
acquiescence therein, Solon conceived his ideal of political salva- 
tion. That men may live together happily, it is necessary that 
they should estabUsh a system of wise laws and give them their 
ready obedience. Selfishness, arrogance, and caprice have no 
place under a reign of law. We have seen how Solon endeavored 
to provide for Athens this Utopian state, and how, to a great 
extent, he failed. But he did not fail because his ideal was wrong. 
He failed because the problem which he set himself was so great 
a one that though the world has puzzled over it for twenty-five cen- 
turies the solution has not yet been found. But the world is more 
sure than ever that the means which Solon proposed for its solu- 
tion is the right one. A reign of law, in which there shall be wise 

1 De Herodoti malignitate 15, p. 858 a. 



120 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

laws and prompt and ready obedience to them, is the goal towards 
which men have more and more consciously directed their efforts. 
It is no slight thing that Solon discovered the formula for the 
organization of human society which is still applied to-day with 
ever increasing success. 

The common habit of the great Greek poets, of Homer, Pindar, 
and the tragedians, was to allow their reflections on human life 
and men's relation to the higher powers that govern the universe 
to reveal themselves through concrete and vivid mythical narra- 
tives. Or, at least, they provided ample mythical illustration 
of their ideas. In the main, the substance of Greek poetry is 
Greek mythology, infused with a spirit of philosophical reflec- 
tion. But in Solon's poems, in the extant fragments at least, 
myths have no place. He does not read his lessons of morality 
and religion in the legendary adventures of the heroes of the race. 
Nor yet does he present his ideas concerning personal and social 
virtue as an abstract ethical system. They appear in dramatic 
setting in the poems which deal with the conditions which pre- 
vailed in Athens. They are not merely moral maxims flung out 
in a void, but a set of practical principles which guided him in 
his public life. We miss the charm of personal character and 
personal incident which legend supplies, but we have in place 
of it a vivid contemporaneousness which serves the same purpose 
of imparting to Solon's poetry the necessary life and reality.^ 

The fair-minded reader will not fail to perceive a genuine 
poetical inspiration in the fragments of Solon's poetry. He will 
be embarrassed to some degree by the occasional nature of some 

1 Cf. Wilamowitz (1893, II, 60) : "die Fran9oisvase entziickt uns durch die 
epische erzahluiigskuiist ilirer bilder ; der abglanz der ganzen grosseii sageiiherr- 
lichkeit rulit aiif ihr, die ini iniitterlande noch alle herzen beherrschte. in 
loiiieii war sie .schon verblasst ; die deniokratie hatte die iiaclikommen der heroen 
zuriickgedraiigt, mid Mimnernos koiinte die sage bereits, eiii vorlaufer der Alex- 
aiidriner, zu spielendem schmucke verwenden. bei Solon tritt sie ganz und gar 
zuriick. dem pomposeii weseu des rittertumes ist seiu eiiifacher sinu vollends 
abgeneigt." 



THE POEMS 121 

of the poems and Solon's preoccupation with contemporary affairs. 
This is no doubt a hindrance to the universahty which charac- 
terizes all great poetry. But it has just been remarked that this 
very circumstance gives to Solon^s work a certain dramatic 
reaUty, the lack of which makes Theognis's sententious poems, for 
example, somewhat dry reading. One of the chief merits of 
Solon's poetry is its intense moral earnestness and the undoubted 
importance of the issues involved. It is instinct with the strong 
feehng and true emotion of a generous-minded patriot. It is not 
the light product of a politician's idle moments nor yet the mere 
instrument of a place-seeker. It is the sincere and unaffected 
outpouring of feelings which sprang from the very core of his exist- 
ence. Solon the statesman and Solon the poet were not two men 
but one and indivisible. The moral vigor of the statesman was 
the inspiration of the poet. Such conditions may not produce 
the greatest poetry, but they may produce poetry of a high merit 
even though of a humbler sort. 

All the moral earnestness in the world, however, could not have 
made real poetry if there had not been something of poetic vision, 
some fire of imagination to kindle in the reader some warmth 
responsive to the glow in the heart of the poet. Such imagina- 
tive power Solon possessed even in a notable degree. It shows 
itself principally in the wealth of metaphor which is to be found 
in the fragments : a demagogue extracts a profit from political 
agitation as if he were getting the butter from the milk ; shrewd 
men walk with the tread of a fox ; a political schemer gets power 
into his hands as a fisherman catches fish in his net ; wealth follows 
dishonest men with reluctance ; public disaster issues from ambi- 
tious and unscrupulous men as lightning flashes from a thunder 
cloud ; social demoralization climbs over the garden wall and 
brings affliction into the life of private citizens. Here are examples 
enough of Solon's open eye and keen vision. And we should not 
forget the two fine passages which are perhaps the best in the 



122 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

poems that survive : the splendid comparison of the justice of 
Zeus with the sudden spring wind which drives away the clouds 
and vapors and makes the world clean again ; and the glowing 
eulogy of Eunomia with its series of striking images. Solon 
could not match perhaps the poignant vividness of Archilochus, 
but he is superior in this regard to all the other elegiac and iambic 
poets of the early age. Furthermore, this imagery is not an arti- 
ficial embellishment ; it is spontaneous and unaffected. Solon 
has no tricks and graces of style. His poetry is sincere, straight- 
forward, intent upon the serious business in hand, and no effort 
is wasted on ornamentation. 

There is a marked versatility in Solon's manner of expression. 
He has equal skill with the trenchant epigram, which is character- 
istic of the elegiac couplet, and with the longer graceful phrase 
which is not bound either at the beginning or the end by the exi- 
gencies of the meter. At times he writes with something of the 
condensed suggestiveness of Sophocles; again his utterances 
remind one of Archilochus by their force and bluntness.^ With 
true Attic ease and grace his style adapts itself naturally and with- 
out constraint to changing moods. 

The language of the elegiac poems was the conventional modi- 
fied epic speech which was employed by all elegiac poets of the 
period. Countless words and phrases are taken from Homer. 
The direct successor of epic poetry, elegiac poetry still adhered 
closeh^ to the old style in spite of the wide difference in tone 
and purpose. But one feels no constraint or lack of ease in 
Solon's employment of the conventional speech. He uses it 
naturally and handily as a tool to which he had grown well 
accustomed. The course of his thought is never dominated by 

1 Cf. Wilamowitz (1898, II, 01) : "der rechte nr.chfolger Homers imd der 
rec'lite Atlieiier ist er vollends in deni wiivS ilin von deni lonier Archilochos' 
scheidet, dem nnver^leic.hlich grosseren aber an den personliclisten irdischen 
klebenden dichter : der sinn fiir die durcliarbuituni; der ziifalligcn wirkliclikeit 
zur typischen wahrheit." 



THE POEMS 123 

the epic tradition. When the language of Homer is inadequate 
to his new uses, he easily mingles with it words out of the 
natural speech of the day. In the iambic and trochaic fragments 
he passes almost entirely from under epic control. In these we 
recognize the forerunners of the perfected speech of the Attic 
drama of the fifth century.^ 

When one reflects upon Solon's work as a poet in Athens in 
the sixth century, certain questions thrust themselves forward 
for which it is difficult to find satisfactory answers. Was Solon 
the only man in Athens who was using poetry for political pur- 
poses? Where did he acquire the habit of expressing his views 
on pubHc affairs in verse? Was pohtical controversy regularly 
carried on by means of partisan poems ? There is not the shghtest 
hint that other men in Athens were writing poetry. Solon never 
speaks as if he were replying to the written statement of an op- 
ponent. Poets are indeed mentioned by him in the list of pro- 
fessions which he gives in his longest elegiac poem. It may be 
that the making of verses was common among the Athenians of 
the day : or it may be that Solon was alone in his use of this power- 
ful instrument. At any rate we know nothing of any poetry but 
Solon's. Possibly his early travels had given him a unique 
opportunity to master the art of composition in its home in Asia 
Minor, so that he could bring it back and use it among his own 
people. These are only conjectures; but it is well to pose the 

1 The judgment of Nageotte (1888, p. 166) on the poetical art of Solon de- 
serves to be quoted for its justice and its moderation : " Ce qui 6tait bien k lul 
encore, c'est le caract^re calme, serein, de son exposition, la facility amiable 
avec laquelle il manie ses pens^es. On sent tout de suite, en le lisant, qu'on a 
change de region et qu'on est sous le ciel de I'Attique. Point de tension ni 
d'effort, une gi-ande sobri^t^ d'images, de comparaisons, une langue saine, claire, 
un style sans pretention qui ne craint pas de descendre parfois jusqu'aux limites 
de la prose ; et sous cet ext^rieur simple, une grande experience des clioses, un 
esprit avise, une ame eiev^e et droite, un cceur profond^ment humain, voil4 ce 
qu'est la po^sie de Solon, qu'il ne faut ni placer trop haut ni mettre trop bas. 
Quoi qu'en aient pu penser quelques Ath^niens, ce qui lui manqua pour ^galer 
Hom^re, ce ne fut pas seulement le loisir, mais le talent. Solon n'est pas un 
grand artiste, pas plus de reste que Tyrt^e. II n'a pas le g^nie cr^ateur d'Archl- 
loque, mais c'est un honnete homme qui sait ^crire en vers." 



124 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

questions at least, if only to show how slight our knowledge of 
Solon's world is after all. 

It is often said that Solon used poetry to accomplish results 
which would in the modern world be effected by prose pam- 
phlets. Since the art of composition in prose was not yet known, 
it did not occur to him to express his ideas and publish them other- 
wise than in verse. There is truth in this ; but there is something 
more to be said. The counterpart in the ancient world of the mod- 
ern pamphlet was the harangue. Men defended their policies and 
attacked their opponents in public speeches. The ancient Greek 
political instrument was oratory. In later times, when prose pam- 
phlets were issued, they still took the form of speeches. Solon 
himself says at the beginning of the poem called " Salamis " that 
he has come with a poem instead of a speech. The notable thing is, 
not that he employed verse instead of written prose, but that he 
appealed to the people through poetry rather than oratory. He 
may have been an orator, too. We know nothing about this. 
In public life, he must have found it necessary often to make 
public addresses. But the question remains why he made use 
of verse at all. The skill had been gained through his practice 
of writing poems on the subjects which were common among the 
elegiac poets — love, the fortunes of men, the ways of the gods, 
the shortness of life, human follies. Possessing this skill he chose 
to use it for political ends. Certain advantages are manifest 
in this practice. The persuasive power of a speech extends no 
farther than the speaker's voice and ends with the speech itself. 
A poem may be repeated again and again ; it may be carried 
everywhere ; its rhythmical sentences linger in the mind. It is 
especially valuable for the slow molding of popular opinion. It 
makes a permanent appeal to the feelings. It was no doubt 
Solon's most effective instrument in the gradual propagation of 
the ideas which must be implanted in men's minds if the reforms 
which he had in view were to be successful. 



THE POEMS 125 

It is surprising that the ancient authors made so httle of the 
fact that Solon was the first Athenian poet. One would think 
that in view of the primacy of Athenian letters in the fifth century, 
Athenian writers would have spoken with interest, if not with 
pride, of the poetical work of their great lawgiver. There may have 
been, undoubtedly there were, other poets in Athens in the sixth 
century ; but they were comparatively insignificant. Solon, pre- 
eminent as a statesman, was also in some measure preeminent as 
a poet. He is one of the few elegiac poets whose poems have 
been preserved. And yet no attempt was ever made by the 
Athenians to claim him as peculiarly a poet of Athens and the 
first of an illustrious line. His poems were not neglected : they 
were sung at festivals and took their place by the side of the other 
great poetry of the past. It would seem as if the Athenian 
abandonment of any claim to proprietorship was an example of 
what may be called the Panhellenic attitude of the Greeks to- 
ward their literature. In politics, union and harmony were im- 
possible among the jealous Greek states ; but in literature there 
seemed to be always an instinctive internationalism. All great 
Greek poets and philosophers belonged to the whole Greek world 
in common. Greek writers moved easily from place to place. 
Their books enjoyed equal favor and equal authority throughout 
the world. Ionian Homer, Boeotian Hesiod, Lesbian Sappho, 
Spartan Tyrtaeus, Sicilian Empedocles, Macedonian Aristotle, 
belonged to all Greeks in common. Literature, like language, was 
a bond which held together politically discordant communities. 
Literature embodied the spirit of the race, and however much 
they quarreled among themselves, the Greeks always felt that 
in spirit they were more closely related to one another than they 
were to any foreign people. Solon's poetry forms a part of this 
common Greek possession ; when one thinks of him as a poet it 
seems almost accidental that he was an Athenian — and this in 
spite of the fact that so much of his poetry was bound up with 



126 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Athenian affairs. "Our Solon," the Athenians might say when 
they thought of their great lawgiver and the founder of their 
democracy ; but as a poet they did not look upon him as the 
founder of an Athenian school or the first of a line of Athenian 
poets. 

On one occasion, at the celebration of the Apaturia, according 
to Plato's story in the Timaeus, some of the poems of Solon had 
been recited in the prize contests for boys. As it happened, the 
elder Critias was present, and one of the bystanders remarked to 
him that in his opinion Solon had not only been the wisest of 
men but also the noblest of poets. In saying this he may have 
been expressing his own real opinion, or he may simply have 
wished to say something agreeable to the old man who was proud 
of his relationship to Solon. At any rate, Critias was much 
pleased, and asserted that if Solon had carried out his plan of 
composing a poem on the story of Atlantis, he would easily have 
made a place for himself by the side of Homer and Hesiod. 

Now Plato, whose attitude toward the poets has always been a 
subject of discussion, was criticized in antiquity for this extrava- 
gant praise of Solon. But Proclus pointed out,^ what is perfectly 
obvious, that the favorable judgment was not his own, but merely 
put into the mouths of certain characters in his story. Not satis- 
fied with this, however, Proclus goes on to show that the epithet 
which has been translated " noblest " really belonged to Solon by 
good right. This Greek word, iX€vdepiu)TaTo<s, is untranslatable in 
its connotation. It is related to the word which means " free," 
cAcv^cpos, as the Latin liheralis is related to liber, and it describes 
the ideal character which can only be attained by a free man 
in contrast with a slave. The English word " noble " has a simi- 
lar connotation in contrast with ''mean." Proclus maintains 
that Solon deserves the title by virtue of his fearless freedom 
in thought and expression. Most poets, he says, in their strug- 
1 See references on p. 11, footnote 3. 



THE POEMS 127 

gle for the mot juste, only succeed in distorting their lines; 
and some through the variety of their conceits lose the real point 
of what they are trying to say. Solon is not guilty of either 
offense, and so deserves the title, even though Critias is the judge. 
It is hardly possible that Plato chose the word iXevOepLo^s as 
an epithet, whether it expresses his own judgment or not, without 
some recollection of Solon's lifelong struggle in the cause of free- 
dom. It unites in the happiest manner what is best in Solon's 
work as a statesman and as a poet. In the one capacity, he was 
a high-minded, loyal, and unselfish supporter of the principle of 
political and economic freedom; in the other he was a frank, 
sincere, and unaffected artist, who instead of being a slave to his 
technique wielded it with supple dexterity. Our remembrance 
of Solon will not be far wrong if there lingers in our minds, in 
connection with his name, the epithet which Plato chose — 

SoAtov 6 eAev^epios. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 
I. Text and Translation 



130 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

I 
Plato Amatorcs 133 c : OlaO' apa, rjv 8' iyco, 6 tl eariv to 
<f>Lko(TO(^6lv ; Yldvv 76, e(f)r). Ti ovv eartv ; €(f)7)V iyco. Tt 8' ciXXo 
<ye Tj Kara to SoXcdi^o? ; ^oXcov yap ttov elire — 

I yrjpdaKco 8' atet ttoWol 8t8acr/cd/xej/09 * 

Kal ifiol SoKel ovtco'; del ')(prjuaL ev ye tl fxavOdveiv tov jxeWovTa 
(^iXoao^rjaeiv^ Kal vediTepov ovTa Kal irpea^VTepov^ Xv o)? irXeldTa 
ev TU) 13 LO) fJ'dOrj. 

II 

Plato Lysis 212 de : Ovk dpa earl <f>iXov Ta> (fiiXoOvTi ovBev 
/JLT) OVK dvTL(^iXovv. OvK €OLKev. Ou8' dpa (f)LXt7r7roL elaLv ou? av 
ol LTTTroL /JLT) dvTL^iXdiaiv^ ovSk (^iXopTvye^^ ovK av ^iXoKVve^; ye Kal 
(^CXoLVOi Kal (fytXoyv/JLvaaral Kal (f>LX6ao(f>oi, dv /irj rj ao<f)ia avTOv^ 
dvTK^iXrj. 7} (f)LXovat fxev ravra eKaaroL^ ov pbevroi (fyiXa oWa, 
dXXd -yjreuSeO' 6 7roLTjTrj<i, 6? €(f)7] 

II 'OX^tO?, a> TTolSe^ T€ (j)LXoi KOL fJiCt)l>V^€<; 1777701 

Kal Kvve^ dypevTol kol feVo? aXXooanof; ; 

Ovk ejJLOtye BoKel^ rj S' 09. 'AXV dXrjOrj SoKel Xeyeiv croi ; Nai. 
To (f)LXovfjLevov dpa rw (^lXovvti (^lXov earlv^ co<^ eouKev, w Mei/efcz^e, 
edv re (f>iXrf edv re Kal fiLarj. olov Kal rd vecoarl yeyovora TratBia^ 
rd fjL€v ovSeTTco cfiiXovvra, rd Be Kal /jLLcrovvra^ orav KoXd^yraL vtto 

I 

Testimonia. — Schol. Sophocles Antigone 711. Schol. Plato Republic \\\\ 
530 d. Plutarch Solon ii 2 ; xxxi 3. Suidas, s.v. yrjpavaL. John Siceliotes in 
Walz Rhetores Graeci vi 201. Zenobius iii 4. Diogenianus iii 80. Gregory of 
Cyprus ii 69. Apostolius v 40. Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 35 ad fin. 

yr}pdaKu> d' aiei: alei yrjpdaKU) Schol. Plat. Rep. 8': om. B, Diogenianus, 
Greg, of Cyprus, Apostol. 5' atet: yap del John Sic. TroXXa: Trdvra reading 
of L in Schol. Soph. Ant. 

II 

Tkstimoxia. — Theognis 1253-6. Lucian Amoves 48. Ilermias In Plat. 
Phaedr. p. 38. 

1. y: (3 Ilermias MSS. (corrected by Ast.). <pi\oL: v^oi Lucian. 2. koL 
K^ves dypevral : OTjpevTai re Kvves Theognis. ^^vos dWodairSs : ^^voi dWodairol 
Theognis. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 131 



" Do you know, then," said I, ^ what is meant by the pur- 
suit of wisdom ? " 

" Certainly," said he. 

" What is it ? " I asked. 

" Is it not the sort of thing which is implied in the saying 
of Solon ? He said, you remember, ' As I grow old I am ever I 
learning many things that are new.' I, too, believe that a man 
who is engaged in the pursuit of wisdom, should follow Solon's 
example and always have in hand some particular subject of 
study, both in his youth and in his later years, so that during 
the course of his life he may learn as great a variety of things 
as possible." 

II 

"Then nothing is dear to a lover unless it returns the 
lover's affection ? " 

" Apparently not." 

"Then men are not fond of horses unless the horses are 
fond of them, nor of quails nor of dogs nor of wine nor of 
gymnastics, nor of wisdom, unless wisdom returns their love. 
Or perhaps we should say that men are fond of all these things, 
but that the things are not dear to them ; in which case the 
poet is wrong who sings : ' Happy is he who hath children II 
dear and horses of uncloven hoof and dogs for the chase and a 
friend to receive him in a foreign land.' " 

" I do not think so," said he. 



132 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Tr)? /JLr)Tpo<; rj virb rou irarpo'^^ o/xo)? Koi fMcaovvra ev eKeivw ru) 
XP^^V TrdvTcov fjLaktard iari rol^i yovevai (jylXraTa. "^fjioiye Sok€l, 
€(f>r], OVTCO^ ^x^tv. 

III-V 

Aristotle Constitutioii of Athens 5 : roiavrri^ Be tt)? Td^€(i)<; 
ovai)^ iv Trj iroXireLa^ kol roiv ttoWcjv BovXevovrcov rol^ 0X170^9, 
dvrearr) roU yv(opi/jLOL<; 6 Srj/JLO^;. Icrx^pd^ Se rrj? ardaeco^; ovo-rj<; 
KOI iroXvv xpovo^ dvTiKaOriixevwv dWrj\oi<;^ eiXovro kolvt) htaX- 
XaKTrjv Kol dp^ovra ^oXcova koX TrjV 'jroXnelav iirerpe'^av avTw 
7roir)(javTi rrjv iXeyeiav ^? ianv dp^f) 

III TivaxTKcOy Kai fJLOL (f)pepo<; evhoOev aXyea Kelrac, 

7rpea/3vTdTir]p iaopwv yalav 'laoi^ta? 
KXivoixivrjv ' 

iv 17 irpcs €KaT€pov<; virep eKarepcov fjudx^rac koX Bia/jLcfyLa^rjTel kol 
fjLerd ravra kolvt) irapaivel Karairaveiv rrjv ivearcjaav <^iXovLKLav. 
r)V B* 6 ^oXcov TTj fxev ^vaet fcal Trj So^y roiv 7rpd)TCOV^ rrj 3' ovaia 
Koi roU TTpdy/iaai roiv /xeacov^ o)? €K re tojv dXXcov o/JLoXoyelrat Kai 
at'To? iv TolaSe roi<; Trocrj/jLaatv fiapTvpel^ Trapacvcov rol^ irXovcy Iol<^ 
/JLT) irXeoveKTelv • 

IV viJL€L<; S' rjavx^dcravTes ivl (f)p€crl Kaprepov rfTop, 

0% TToWoiv dyadcov et? Kopov rjXdaaTe, 
iv fji€TpLOLaL TiOecrOe pueyav voov ovre yap rjixei^ 
7Teicr6pie6\ ovO^ vpuv apria ravT ccrerat. 

Kol o\ft)9 aiel ttjv alriav rr}? ardaeco^ avdirrei rot's irXovaloL's' Sio Kai 
iv cipxy Tr)? iXejeia^; BeSoLKevai (jyrjal 

V TTJV re <^i\apyvpir)v rrjv 9* vireprj^aviriv, 

o)? hiCL ravra rrj^ eydpa^; ivearcoarjf;. 

Ill 

3. K\Lvofx4vqv Wilcken: Kaivoix^vrjv Sandys : Kap<poiJ.^vr]v Diels. 

IV 

4. TavT : irdpT Sandys. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 133 

*' You think the poet is right ? " 

''Yes." 

" Then that Avhieh is beloved, is dear to the lover, appar- 
ently, whether its own feelings be those of love or even of 
hate. Babies, for instance, who do not yet love any one and 
who even hate their mothers and fathers when they are pun- 
ished by them, are nevertheless just at the moment when they 
hate their parents, more dear to them than at any other time." 
''It seems to me to be so." 

III-V 

The organization of the state being such as I have de- 
scribed, the many were the slaves of the few, and, in conse- 
quence, the people rose in opposition to the upper classes. The 
feud was a violent one, and the opposing factions were pitted 
against one another for a long time. In the end, by common 
agreement, they elected Solon as archon, to act as arbitrator 
between them, and they intrusted him with the task of revis- 
ing the constitution. His elegiac poem had already appeared ,' ■ 
which begins : " I am not unaware ; and pain lies heavy at my m 
heart as I watch the oldest of Ionian states sinking lower and 
lower." It is this same poem in which, presenting arguments 
for both sides, he champions first one party and then the other, 
and ends by counseling both alike to put a stop to the prevail- 
ing spirit of contention. Solon himself was a man who by 
birth and reputation belonged to the highest class ; but his 
business activities and his limited means place him in the 
middle class. The main evidence for this statement, which is 
generally recognized to be true, he gives himself in this same 
group of poems, where he urges the rich not to be greedy : 



Testimonium. — Plutarch Solon xlv 2 : dXX' avrbso ZdXojv okvwv <prj(n rb tt/jw- 
Tov axj/aadai. ttjs TroXireias /cot 5e5oiKti)S twv fiiv ttjv 0i\ox/!>T7/iaTtai', tQp d^ tt)u 
V'F€pr](paviav. 



134 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

VI-XI 

Aristotle Constitution of Athens 12: ravra 8' on tovtov top 
rpoirov ea^ev oX r dWot avfK^covovai irdvre'i koI avro^ iv ry iroi- 
7]<Tei /JLe/JLvrjrac irepl aurcou iv TotoSe' 

VI ^VH'V ^^^ y^P ^Soj/ca rocrov yipa<; ocraov dirapKei, 
Tifirjq ovT d(f)ekcov ovt inope^afMevo^' 
ot 8' €l)(^op SvuajJiii' /cat ^pruxaaiv rjcrav dyiqTol^ 
KoX Tola icfypoLcrdfjiiqi' fjLTjSev det/ce? e^eiv 
6 ecTTrjv 8' dix<^i^akcou KpaTepov (TaKo^; dfji(j)OTepoLcnp, 
viKav S' ovK elaa ovheripov^ aSi/cw?. 

irdXiv 8' d7ro<j>atv6/jL€vo(; irepl rov ttXt^^ov^^ w? aurO) hel 'X^prja-Qat' 

VII SrJ/i-o? 8' 0)8' av dpicFTa avv rjyepuoveacnv cTrotro, 
/xr)T€ \lrjv dve6ei<; fJLyjre /3iai,6fJi€vo^. 

TiKT€L yap KOpO^ vf^plV^ CTaV TToXv^ 6X/3o<; €TTr)TaL 

duOpcxiJTOLGiv 6croL<; fjLrj v6o<; dpTLO<; tj. 

Kol irdXiv 8' eTep(o6C irov Xeyet irepl rayv Biavei/Jiaa-OaL T7]V yijv 
l3ovXofi6vcov' 

VIII ot 8* €<^' dpirayrj <jvvrj\6ov, eXTTtS* el^ov dcjivedv, 

Ka^oKOVT/ efca(TTo? avrcov oX/Sov evprjcreiv ttoXvv, 
Kai /x: K(t.TiXXovTa Xeio)? rpa^vv eKc^aveiv voov. 
^avvjL fxev tot i(f)pd(Tai'TO^ vvv 8e /xoi ^oXovfjuepoi 

VI 

Testimonii:m. — Plutarch Solon xviii 4. 

1. y^pas : /cpctros riutarch. dwapKei: ^TrapKet Plutarch (corrected by Coraes). 

VII 

Testimonia. — 1.2. Plutarch Comparison of Solon and Publicola ii 3. 
3. Clement of Alexandria Strom. VI ii 8, 7 f. Diogenianus viii 22. Schol. 
J'indar OL. xiii 12. 3.4. Theogiiis 153 f. 

2. ^la^S/xevos : irie^dfxevos Plutarch. 3. yap : rot Tlieognis, Diogenianus, 
Schol. Pindar. iroXi/s : /ca/cy Theognis, Schol. Pindar. 7ro\i>$ dXfios ^ir-qrai : ica/cc? 
ivSpl irapeir) Diogenianus. 4. avdpilnroiaLv 6<tois : avdpibiri^ Kal Sry Theognis. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 135 

**Calm the eager tumult of your hearts. You have forced IV 
your way forward to a surfeit of good things. Confine your 
swelling thoughts within reasonable bounds. For we shall not 
comply with your present disposition, and you yourselves will not 
find it meet for your own interests." In general, he puts the 
blame for the dissension upon the wealthy class, and that is why 
he says, at the very beginning of the poem, that he fears their 
" covetousness and insolence," implying that the hostile feelings V 
which were prevalent were due to these causes. 

VI-XI 

All the authorities are agreed that the results of Solon's re- 
forms were as I have described them. But he has alluded to 
them himself in several of his poems. One such passage runs 
as follows : 

" To the common people I have given such a measure of VI 
privilege as sufficeth them, neither robbing them of the rights 
they had, nor holding out the ope of greater ones ; and 1 have 
taken equal thought for those who were possessed of power and 
who were looked up to because of their wealth, careful that 
they, too, should suffer no indignity. I have taken a stand 
which enables me to hold a stout shield over both groups, and 
I have allowed neither to triumph unjustly over the other." 

In another passage he explains what he believes to be the 
right way of dealing with the people : 

" The populace will follow its leaders best if it is neither vil 
left too free nor subjected to too much restraint. For excess 
giveth birth to arrogance, when great prosperity attendeth 
upon men whose minds lack sober judgment." 

Again in another place he speaks of those who desired a re- 
distribution of the land : 

" They who gathered to share in the spoils entertained vast VIII 
hopes. Every one of them expected to make his fortune, and 
thought that I, though I might prattle mildly now, would reveal 



136 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

5 Xo^ov otpdaXjjLola^ opojcri Trcti^re? axrre StJlot^' 
ov \peci)v' CL fjLev yap etna, avv Oeolcnv r^vvaay 
aXXa o ov poLTrjP eepoop, ovOe fxoL Tvpavvihofi 
apSdv€L /3iCL TL y^e{et^', ovSe TTieipa^ ^Oovo<; 
7raT/>t8o9 KaKoiaiv €aOkov<; icroixoipiav ^X^^^- 

TrdXtv Be koI irepl ty}^ dTTOKOTrrjf; rcov '^pecjv fcal rcov hovXevovrayv 
/jl€v TTporepov, iXevOepcoOevroiv Be Bid rrjv o-eta-d^^Oeiav' 

IX iyo) oe, tcoi^ pep ovveKa ^vvrjyayov 

Srjpov, TL TovTOiv TT p\v Tv^^lv eVavc^a/x^7^'; 
avppapTvpoirj TavT av eV Si/ciy ^R^^^^ 
prjTiqp pbeyiCTTr) Saipopcup 'OXvpTTLCjp 
5 apicTTa, Trj pekaiva, rrjf; iyco ttotc 
opovf; dvelXop TroXXa^^ TreTTT^yoras* 
irpoaOev he hovkevovaa^ vvv ekevOepa. 
TToXXov? 8* \\Oijpa<; TrarpiS^ el<; SeoKTirov 
dvTjyayov TrpaOevTa^, dXkov iKSLK(o<;, 
10 dXkov St/cato)?, Tovs 8* dvayKaiTjf; vtto 

^petoi)? (f)vy6vTa<;, yXaxrcrav ovKer ^ Xttlkj^v 
levTas, CD^ av TToWaxj) TrXavcopevovS' 
Tov<; o evuao avrov oovkiiqv aeiKea 
e^orra?, r^Orj SecnroTcov rpopevpevov^, 

VIII 

Testimoxia. — 4.5. Phitarch Solon xvi 2. 6.7. Aristides, vol. 2, p. 536 
(Dindorf). 

1. apir ay rj (XvvrjXdoy lUchiirda : apirayala-iv fjXdop Sundys. 6. Si fji^v yap eiTra: 
A fji^v yap AeX-TTTa (CJai.sford omits yap) Aristides. 7. &\\a : d/ia (&\\a Gaisford) 
Aristides. 

IX 

Testimonia. — 3-27. Aristides xlix 397 f., vol. 2, pp. 536-538 (Dindorf). 
6.7. Plutarch Solon xv 5. 11-14. Plutarch Solon xv 5. 16. Plutarch Solon xv 2. 

5. TTjs : tJs Ai'isti(l(^s (corrected by Scaliger and Brunck). 11. xP^'o^^^ <P^- 
ybvTa^ : XRV^I^f^^ X^yovras Aristides, ovk^t : ovk IMutarch. 18. 8ovXir)y : SovXelrjv 
3 MSS. of IMutarch : SovXoavvrjv vuli;. of Plutarch : BovXelrjs (corrected to5ovXir]vhy 
Jiruiick, to dovXelrjp by Canter) Aristides. 14. ijdrj 5ea-iroTibv: ijdr) {ijdr} conj. Bergk) 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 137 

a nature stern enough in the end. Idle were their notions then, 
and now they are all angry with me and look at me with side- 
long glances as at an enemy. They have* no reason to do so. 
What I promised, with the gods' help I fulfilled ; other things 
I did not thoughtlessly undertake. I should find no pleasure 
in a thing which was achieved through the exercise of a tyrant's 
power, nor should I be glad to see the rich soil of the fatherland 
divided equally among the good and the bad." 

In still another passage he speaks of the cancellation of 
debts and of those who from their former state of servitude had 
been restored to liberty by the act of disburdenment : 

*' Turning now to my own case, and considering first the IX 
objects for which I brought the people together, you ask me 
why I stopped before I had achieved those objects ? The an- 
swer to this question may be found in the corroborative evidence 
which will be given before the tribunal of Time by the black 
Earth, the supreme mother of the divinities of Olympus. I re- 
moved the stones of her bondage which had been planted every- 
where, and she who was a slave before is now free. I brought 
back to their own divinely founded home many Athenians who 
justly or unjustly had been sold into slavery in foreign lands, 
and I brought back those whom destitution had driven into 
exile, and who, through wandering long abroad, no longer spoke 
the Attic tongue ; and I restored to liberty those who had been 
degraded to slavery here in their own land and trembled at 
their masters' whims. These things I accomplished through 
arbitrary action, bringing force to the support of the dictates 
of justice, and I followed through to the end the course which 
I promised. On the other hand, I drafted laws, which show 
equal consideration for the upper and loAver classes, and provide 
a fair administration of justice for every individual. An un- 
scrupulous and avaricious man, if he had got the whip hand of 
the city as I had, would not have held the people back. If I 
had' adopted the policy which was advocated by my opponents 



138 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

15 i\ev9epov^ eOrjKa. ravra fjuev KpareL, 

ofxov l^ir)v re /cat Slktjv avi/apfjLoaa^, 

ipe^a /cat SirjkOov ct)9 VTTe<j^6p.rjv . 

decrpLOV^ 8' 6poLa)<; tw /ca/cw re /cdya^w, 

evOelav els eKacTov appoaas Slktjv, 
20 iypaxfja. Kevrpov 8' aXXo? cL? eya> Xay8cu^'5 

KaKO(l)paSij<; re /cat cf)LkoKTijp(t)P dprjp, 

ovK av Kareax'^ Srjpov el yap rjOeXov 

a rot? evavTioiaiv rjvSavep rore, 

avOis 8* a TolcTLv ovrepoi (^pacrataro, 
25 TToWiov av dvSpcov 'qS' e)(y)pa)Orj ttoKis. 

Tojp ovveK dXKrjv TrdvToOev iroievpevos 

COS ev Kvcrlv TroWrjcnv e(jTpd(f>r)i' Xvkos- 

Kal ttoXlv ouetSi^cov TTyDO? TO.? varepov avrcjv fxefJiy^L^otpia^ 
apL^orepcov 

X S-qpo) pep el ^prj SiaffydSr):/ oveiSicrai, 

a vvv e^ovo'iv ovttot o^OaXpoZcriv av 
evhovTes elSov. 

ocroi he peil^ovs /cat yStaz^ dpeivoves 
5 alvolev av pe /cat <^i\ov TroioCaTO. 

el 'yap ri^ dWo^ (j)7]al ravTrj^; tt}? t£/x>}? eTV^ev, 

XI OVK av /careicr^e Srjpov ouS' enavcraTO, 

TTplv dvrapd^as map e^elXev ydXa. 
iyo) 8e TovTOJV axrirep iv jLterat^/itoi 
0/309 KaTeaTrjv. 



deairSTas Aristides. 10. 6fxov : p6fxov Sandys. 18. 6/xoicjs : o/xolovs Aristides. 
24. ovrepoi (ppaaalaro : dr^pois 5pa(Tai 6ta Aristides. 20. a\K7]v: dpx^'' Aristides. 
TToievfjLevos: KVKev/xepos Aristides. 27. iroWria-iv: TroXXara-cj/ Aristides. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 139 

then, or if thereafter I had consented to the treatment which 
their opponents were always phinning for them^ this city would 
have lost many of her sons. This Avas the reason why 1 stood 
out like a wolf at bay amidst a pack of hounds, defending my- 
self against attacks from every side." 

Again he reproves the complaints which were made by both 
parties at a later time : 

" The common people (if I must give public utterance to my x 
rebuke) would never have beheld even in their dreams the 
blessings which they now enjoy. . . . All the stronger and 
more powerful men in the city would sing my praises and seek 
to make me their friend." 

For if another man, he said, had obtained this office, '' he xi 
would not have held the people back, and he would not have 
rested until by continued agitation he had got the butter from 
the milk. But I set myself up as a barrier in the debatable 
land between the two hostile parties." 



X 

1. 8ia(()d5r)v Condos : 8ia(f>pd5r)p papyri. 

XI 

Testimonium. — 1.2. Plutarch /Soiow xvi 2. 

2. dvTapd^as : civ rapd^as Plutarch. iriap Plutarch : irvap papyri. i^eiXev 
i^^V Plutarch. 



140 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 



XII 



Demosthenes De falsa legatione 254 ff. : Ae7e h-q ^ol Xu^cdv 
Kol ra rov ^6\covo<i iXeyela ravri, Xv lStjO* on kol ^6\(ov ifMiaei 
Tov^ oXov^ oi/TO? [/.c, Aeschines] avOpayirov; . . . 

EAEFEIA 

XII 'HfierepT] Se ttoXi? /caret fxev Ato? ovttot oXeira^ 

aiaav koI jjLaKoipojv decjv </>peVa? dOavdrcop' 
TOiTj ydp pueydOvpiO<^ eiricrKOTro^ o^ptfjiOTrdTprj 
IlaXXa? 'A07]vaL7] )(^lpa<; virepOev e^eC 
5 avTol he ^Oeipeiv pieyakrjv ttoXlv dcfypaSirjcnv 
dcTTol fiovXovTai ')(^p'qiJLaaL TreiOofievoLy 
Sijfjiov 6^ rjyejxovdiv aSt/cog voo^, olcriv eTOijxov 

v^pLO^ Ik jjieydXr]<; dXyea TToWd nadelv' 
ov ydp eTTLO'TavTaL Kare^etv Kopov ovSe 7rapovaa<; 
10 ev(j)poavi'a<; Koo-fxelp Sairo? eV rjcrv^irj. 

TT\ovTOvaiv 8' aSt/cot? epy/JLacn Trei06p.evoL 

ovO* lepoiv KTedv(x)v ovre tl hnqpLoa iojv 
<^eih6p,evoi KkiiTTOvaiv icf) dpirayf) dWoOev aXX.09, 

ouSe ^v\d(T(TovTai (Tejipd OefxeOka At/cr/?, 
15 rj aiyojcra o-vvoiSe rd yiyvopueva irpo t iovTa, 

Tco 8e y^povct) TrdvTco^ rjkO^ diroTeLcrofxevr). 
TOVT 17817 irdarj TrdXet ep^erai ikKo<; d(f)VKTOP' 

€19 8e KaKYjv Ta)(eaj<; rjkvOe Sov\oo'vpr]v^ 



Xll 

13. K\4irTov(Tiv ^0' apirayy : ' iure suspecta ' Butcher (marks with daggers) : 
d(papirayy FBQYr. 14. d^fiedXa Ai/ctjs Hergk : ALktjs d^fiedXa codd. 16. dtrorei- 
(TOfi^vrj : diroTKTOfji^vr} B corr. : diroTKraix^vrj COdd. cett. 18. -^Xvde : desperavit 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 141 

XII 

Read, if you please, these elegiac verses of Solon. You will 
see from them, gentlemen, that Solon, too, despised men of his 
sort : 

" The ruin of our state will never come by the doom of Zeus XII 
or through the will of the blessed and immortal gods ; for Pallas 
Athena, valiant daughter of a valiant sire, is our stout-hearted 
guardian, and she holdeth over us her protecting arms. It is 
the townsfolk themselves and their false-hearted leaders who 
would fain destroy our great city through wantonness and love 
of money. But they are destined to suffer sorely for their out- 
rageous behavior. They know not how to hold in check their 
full-fed lust, or, content with the merriment the banquet 
affords, to take their pleasure soberly and in order. . . . They 
are rich because they yield to the temptation of dishonest 
courses. . . . They spare neither the treasures of the gods nor 
the property of the state, and steal like brigands one from an- 
other. They pay no heed to the unshaken rock of holy Justice, 
who, though she be silent, is aware of all that happeneth now or 
hath happened in the past, and, in course of time, surely cometh 
to demand retribution. Lo, even now there cometh upon the 
whole city a plague which none may escape. The people have 
come quickly into degrading bondage ; bondage rouseth from 
their sleep war and civil strife ; and war destroyeth many in 
the beauty of their youth. As if she were the prey of foreign 
foes, our beloved city is rapidly wasted and consumed in those 
secret conspiracies which are the delight of dishonest men. 

"These are the evils which stalk at home. Meanwhile the 
poor and needy in great numbers are loaded with shameful 
bonds and sold into slavery in foreign lands. . . . Thus 
public calamity cometh to the house of every individual, and 
a man is no longer safe within the gates of his own court, 
which refuse him their protection. It leapeth over the garden- 



142 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

17 (TToicnv €ix(f)vkov TTokeyiov 6^ evhovr eVeyetpei, 
20 69 ttoWCjv ipaTTjv co\e(T€v yjXlkltjp- 

e/c yap SvcFfxepecop ra^j^ew? TToXvrjparov olcftv 

Tpv)(eTaL ev avvo'^ois roi^ ahiKovai (fyiXai^. 
TavTa jxev ev ^TJP'Cp crrpecfteTaL KaKoi- tojv Se Trevi^pcjv 
iKvovvTai TToXXol yoiav i<; dkXoSaTTrjv 
25 TTpaOevTef; hecrpioiai t aeiKekioiai Se^eVre?. 

ovTCii S-qixocnov KaKov ep^eTai ot/caS' efcctcrrw, 
avXeioi S* er* €)(€lv ovk e9e\ovcn Ovpai, 
'I v\jjr]Xov 8' vnep €pKo<; virepOopev, evpe Se Travroi^y 
el /cat rt9 (j)euyo)v ev p^vxV V ^otXa/xoi;. 
30 ravTa StSafat 6vfjio<; ^ A6r]vaLov<; jxe /ceXeuet, 
o)<; KaKOL TrXelcTTa TrdXet Svcrpofxir] Trape^ei, 
evpoixLT) 8' evKocTfJia koI apna ttolvt aiTO(^aiveiy 

/cat 0* a/xa rots ahiKoicr djOK^trt^r^crt 7re8a?* 
Tpa\ea Xetati^et, Travel Kopov, v^piv dfiavpol^ 
35 avatz/et 8' dr')75 dvOea (fyvofxeva, 

evOvvei 8e 8t/ca9 cr/coXta?, v7Tep7](l)avd t epya 

irpavvei, iravei 8' epya 8t^ocrracrtT79, 
Travel 8' dpyaXer;? epiSo<; )(^6kop, ecrrt 8* utt' aur^? 
TTavTa /car' dvdpatTrov^ dpTia /cat Trivvrd, 

*AKOveT (o dvBpe'; *A67jvaloL Trepl tojp tolovtcop dvdpuyTrcov ola 
SoXcr)!^ Xeyet^ koX Trepl twi^ ^eaiz^ 01/9 <^?;(7t r^i^ ttoXlv crw^eiv. 



Butcher ("fort. ■^TaYe — ■^Xi'^e ex 16 repetitum"). 19. iireyeipeL vulg. : iireyeipeiu 
BQ : iirayeipeip FQ. 22. 0aat5 Bergk : 0^015 QY : 0iXoi;s Vulg. 28. ttclvtcos 
correctiuii (!x cod. IJodlejaiio : iravTas vulg. 29. Kai anonymus in margine libri 
Lessingiani : ye codd. y 6a\dfxov Schneidewin : rj daKdjxi^ vulg. 33. Kai 6' dfia 
O. Schneider : Kai dafxa Butclier. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 14? 

wall, however high it be, and surely findeth him out, though he 
run iiid hide himself in the inmost corner of his chamber. 

" These things my heart prompteth me to teach the Athe- 
nians, and to make them understand that lawlessness worketh 
more harm to the state than any other cause. But a law-abiding 
spirit create th order and harmony, and at the same time putteth 
chains upon evil-doers ; it maketh rough things smooth, it 
checketh inordinate desires, it dimmeth the glare of wanton 
pride and withereth the budding bloom of wild delusion ; it 
maketh crooked judgments straight and softeneth arrogant be- 
havior ; it stoppeth acts of sedition and stoppeth the anger of 
bitter strife. Under the reign of law, sanity and wisdom pre- 
vail ever among men." 

You hear, gentlemen of Athens, what Solon has to say about 
men of this kind, and about the gods, to whom, in his opinion, 
we owe the preservation of the state. 



/ 



144 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

XIII-XIV 

Diodorus Siculus ix 20 [Exc. Vat. p. 21] : Xeyerai Be ^oXcov 
Kal TrpoeiTrelv rol^ * Kdr)vaioL<; rrjv iaofJievTjv Tvpavviha hC iXejeicoV 

XIII e/c i'€cl>ekr)<; TreXerat x^^^^*^ ix4vo<; tJSc x^^^(>V^^ 

PpovTT) 8* €/c XafXTTprj^ yiyverai aaT^ponrj^;' 
dvSpcov S' e/c fxeyaXoiv ttoXi? oXXvrat, els Sc piovdpyov 
SrjfjiOf; diSpeLTj SovXaavvr^v eireaev' 
5 \irjv 8* i^dpavT ov pdhiov icm KaTa(T\eiv 
vcTTepov, dXX' riht] ^py) {irepl) Trdvra voeiv. 

Kal fjLera ravra TvpavvovvTO<; €<f)r)' 

Xiy el 8e TTeTTOvOare Xvypd Sl vfjueTeprjv KaKorrjTa, 

fjLT) Oeolcriv TovT(x)v ixolpav eVajLtc^epere' 
avTol yap tovtovs 7)v^7JcraT€ pvo'ia h6vTe<;, 
Kal Sid TOVTO KaKT^v eerier e oov\o(Tvvrjv . 
5 vpiicov 8' €19 p-ev €KaaTO<; dkcoweKos l^vecri ^aivei, 
avpiracnv 8' vplv ^aui^o? eveari v6o<^' 
et? yap yXaxrcrav opdre Kal els enos aloXov duSpos, 
€19 epyov 8' ovhev yiyvop^evov ^XeireTe. 



xm 

Tbstimonia. — 1.2. Plutarch Solon iii 5. 1-4. Diogenes Laertius i 50; 
ApostoliiLS vi 03 c. 3.4. DiodoriLS Siculiis xix 1, 4. 

1. TT^XcTttt : (f>^peTai Diogenes LaertiiLS, Apostolius. x^^^f^s Plutarch, Di- 
ogenes LaertiiLS, Apostolius : daXdrTrjs cod. Diodori. 3. 5' : om. Diodorus xix 
1, 4. ets . . . 8ov\o(Tvi'tji' Diodorus xix 1, 4, Diogenes Laertius, Apostolius : 
iK , . . 8ov\o(Tvv7}s cod. Diodori ix 20. fiovdpxov : rvpdvvov Diodorus xix 1, 4. 

4. didpeir): &i8pi.s iujv Diogenes Laertius (ap. Bergk): dtSpis uiv ApostoliiLS. 

5. \Itjv Schiieidewin : Xelrjs cod. i^dpavr ov Sclineidewin : e^epaira cod. : i^ap- 
divT ov Becker-Dindorf-Vogel (ex coniectura Schneidewiui). 0. Trepl supplevit 
Dindorf. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 145 

XIII-XIV 

It is said, furthermore, that Solon foretold to the Athenians 
the tyranny which was imminent, in the following elegiac verses: 

'^ Out of the cloud come snow and hail in their fury, and XIII 
the thunderbolt springeth from the lightning's flash : so from 
great men ruin issueth upon the state, and the people through 
their own folly sink into slavery under a single lord. Having 
raised a man to too high a place, it is not easy later to hold him 
back : now is the time to be observant of all things." 

Afterwards, when the tyranny was established, he said : 

" If ye have suffered the melancholy consequences of your XIV 
own incompetence, do not attribute this evil fortune to the 
gods. Ye have yourselves raised these men to power over you, 
and have reduced yourselves by this course to a wretched state 
of servitude. Each man among you, individually, walketh with 
the tread of a fox, but collectively ye are a set of simpletons. 
For ye look to the tongue and the play of a man's speech and 
regard not the deed which is done before your eyes." 



XIV 

Tbstimonia. — 1-8. Diogenes Laertias i 51 f. Nicetas Choniates De 
rebus post captam urbem gestis 772 (Migne Patrologia Graeca cxxxix 968). 
1-4. Plutarch Solon xxx 6. 5-7. Plutarch Solon xxx 2. Clemens Alexan- 
drinus Stromata I ii 23. 1. 

1. Xi;7pa : Seiva Diogenes Laertius, Nicetas. 2. deoTaip : rt deocs Plutarch, 
Diogenes, Nicetas. toOtuiv Plutarch, Diogenes, Nicetas : ra^Trjp Diodorus, 
Becker-Dindorf-Vogel. /xoipav : fMrjviv Plutarch. 3. pvaia Diogenes, Nicetas : 
pijfxaTa Diodorus, Plutarch, Becker-Dindorf-Vogel. 4. tovto : TaOra Plutarch, 
Diogenes, Nicetas. eo-xere : fo-xcre Diogenes : ^crxere Nicetas. 5. fj.^v : omisit 
Clemens. 6. x^Cws Plutarch, Clemens : Kov(f)os Diodorus, Becker-Dindorf-Vogel. 
7. €7ros ai6\ov : ctttj aifx^Xov Plutarchus, Diogenes, ClemeiLs : cttos aioXov Nicetas. 
Hie versus a Plutarcho ante distichum praecedentem positus est. 



146 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 



XV 



Philo De opificio mundi 104 : ra^ rjXiKCa^ ravra^ aveypayjre 
Kol ^oXcov 6 Twv ^KOrjvaiwv vofioOeTT]^ iXeyela iroLr]aa^ rdSe' 

XV Xlai? fjiev avrj^Qf; icov en vtJttlo^ €pKO<; o^ovtcou 

(f)V(Ta^ iK/3dWei TTpoijov iv enr eTecnv' 
Tov^; 8' irepov^ ore Srj reXecrr] 6eo^ eiTT iviavTOvs, 
r)^rj<; iK(f)aLveL cnjpara yiyvoiiiviqs' 
6 TTj TpiTOLTT) he jeveiov ae^ofxevcov en yvicav 
\a\vovTai^ -)(^poirj<; auOo^; dfxeL^ofJiei'r)^' 
TTj Se Terdprr) ird^ rt^ ev i^SofjudSi piiy dpicTTO^ 

IcT^v, TjVT aVSpe^f cnjfJLaT ix^ovcr dpETrj^' 
TrepLTTTTj o copiov dvhpa ydfxov fxefxprjixei^ov elvai 
10 KOI TTaiocx)v tprjTeZv eicroTTicrco yeverjv' 

T'Q §' e/cT]7 TTepl irdvTa KarapTveTai v6o<^ di^Syoo?, 

ovO epoeiv eu Ofji(i)<; epy airaKafxva uekei 
inTa 8e povi' kol ykcoaaav iv ifihofjidaLv fiey* dpicrrof; 
OKTOJ T' dficfyoTepcov recrcrapa /cat 8eV err)' 
15 Trj 8* ivdrrj en puev hvvarai, fxaXaKcorepa 8' avTOv 
TTpos fJLeyaXrjv dperrjv yXwcrcrd re /cai cro(f)Lr)' 
TYjv SeKdTYjv 8' €L Tt? TcXecTa? /caret fjuerpop i/coiro, 
ovK av aoj/Do? iojv pioipav ^\ol Oavdrov. 

XV 

Testimonia. — Clemens Alexandriniis Stromata VI xvi 144, 4 ff. Aposto- 
lus xiv 94. Anatolius wepl 5e/cd5o5 p. 37, Codex Parisinus 1843 ap. Cramer 
Anecd. Graeca i 46. 

1. 6Ti: 6 (TTt Anatolius. 2. iv ^irr : ^ttt' A;/ Cramer. 3. reX^cr?; Schaefer : 
TeKiari Philo (FG): reX^aei Philo (ceteri), Clemens, Apostolius, Anatohus, 
Cramer. 4. iKcpalvei : de 4>a'LveL Apostolius, Cramer : 5^ (papeiarjs Clemens : 5' 
iipdvT] Anatolius. a-qfj-ara : (nrip/xaTa Clemens, yiyvofiivrjs : yivofiiv-qs Apostolius, 
Anatolius: 7eij'o/i^j'77s Cramer: 71 ^o/a^j/wj' Clemens. 5. rpiTdrT? : xpirT? Cramer. 
yiveiov: 7^veia Apostolius : 7^j'6i Cramer : 76^10;/ Anatolius. de^oM^'"*"': de|6/ie;'oi; 
Clemens : al^ofx^uojv Anatolius. ert Ber^k : inl Philo et testimonia omnia. 
yvlu}v: 7utcl;»' AnatoliiLS, Cramer: yevvuv Clemens. 6. Xaxvovrai xpo^V^' Xd^vov 
T fxvv (Is AnatoliiLs. 7. wds Clemens, Anatolius : Trats Philo, Apostolius, 
Cramer. e^dofxdSi fi^y Clemens : ipdofiddeaaiv Philo (FG), Cramer : e^dofxd- 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 147 

XV 

These periods in human life are also recognized by Solon, 
the lawgiver of Athens, in the following elegiac verses : 

" A boy, before he cometh to man's estate, and while he is XV 
still a child, getteth and loseth his rampart of teeth within the 
first seven years. When god bringeth the second seven to a 
close, the signs of budding manhood begin to show. In the 
third period, a downy beard appeareth, though the limbs have 
not reached their full growth, and the boyish bloom of the com- 
plexion fadeth. In the fourth period of seven years, every man 
is at the prime of his physical strength. . . . The fifth period 
is the season for a man to bethink him of marriage and seek off- 
spring against the future. In the sixth, experience of every 
sort carrieth his mind on to perfection, and he feeleth no longer 
the same inclination to the wild pranks of youth. In the 
seventh seven, he is at his prime in mind and tongue, and also 
in the eighth, the two together making fourteen years. In the 
ninth period, though he still retaineth some force, he is feebler 
both in wisdom and in speech and faileth of great achievement. 
If a man attaineth to the full measure of the tenth period, the 
fate of death, if it come upon him, cometh not untimely." 

Seo-tv Anatolius : e^Sd/xaa-LvVhilo (AB), Apostolius : e/35o/xd5' iarlv Brunck, Cohn. 

8. i]v T Clemens : 7; t Philo (MHFiGi), Anatolias : rj t Philo (ABF2G2), Aposto- 
lius : o'i T Philo (L) : ■§ t Cramer. c-fjixaT' exovai. : /xer^xofct Anatolius. 

9. ujpiov : (bpri Apostolius. 10. daoirlaoi Clemens : e^oTriaw Pliilo, Apostoliiis, 
Anatolius, Cramer, Cohn. 11. trepl: Kara Cramer. KarapTverai: KarapTijveTai 
Clemens, Apostolius. 12. ov8' : ip 8' Cramer. ^pSeiv id o/xQs: iaidecu ed' bpLoiwi 
Clemens. airaKaixva d^Xec : dird\aiJ.v' id^Xei Apostolius : (ipya) /xdraia d^XcL Cle- 
mens : (jepya) aTrdXai/jiva Anatolius. 13. /xey dpiaros : txer dpicrrais Apostolius, 
Cramer. 14. oktio t Mangey : oktu 5' Philo, Clemens, Apostolius, Cramer : 
6ts oKToj 5' Anatolius. d/j-cpoT^pwv Mangey : dp.<f)6Tepa Philo, Apostolius : 

rp 

d/jLcpdrepov Cramer : dp.(f)o Anatolius. riaaapa Kal dcK : reaffepeKaibeK Cramer : 
T^aaapes Kal dt] Anatolius. 15. /i^v: fiijv Philo (M), Cohn. fiaXaKdorepa : ixerpi- 

rp 

d)T€pa Clemens : /xaXaKU} Anatolius. 16. irpos : €<ttl irpbs Anatolius. yXdaad re 
Kal (T0(pl7) : aQfid re Kal Svvafxis Clemens, re : t6 Anatolius. 17. t^ SeKdrrj 5' 6t€ 
St? TeX^CTT) Oebs 'itrT ipiavrovs Clemens, ttjv deKdrrju : ry deKdrrj Apostolius (vel ttj 
SeKaTT)), Cramer. 5' e! ns : 8^ dans Anatolius. 18. icbv : erj Anatolius. exot : 
exei Clemens, Apostolius : exwv Anatolius. 



148 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

XVI 

Plutarch Solon ii 2 : irXovrov 8' ovk eOav^a^ev [sc. o So\a)i/], 
aWa Acat (^rjatv Ofioiay^ irXovrelv a) re 

XVI TToXu? apyvp6<; icTTLV 

KOL ^pvcro9 /cat ^179 7rvpo(f)6pov ireSCa 
LTTTTOL 0^ TjixLovoL Tc, /Cat o) fjiova TavTtt TrdpecTLV, 
yacTTpi T€ /cai TrXevpfj /cat noalp a/3pa iraOeiv, 
5 TratSd? r' '^8e yvi^at/cdg, €7717 1^ /cat raur' ac^t/CT/rat, 
77^17, crui' 8* a>yDT7 yiyverai apfJLoSia. 



XVI a Tavr' a(f)evo^ 6v7]Toiai' tol yap irepLCJcna iravTa 

Xpyjp^cLT e^cDv ovhei<; epx^Tau €t9 *Ai8e&j, 
ovo^ av OLTTOiva Oioov<; OdvaTov (f)vyoL ovOe ^apeta? 
10 vovcrov<; ovSe KaKov yrjpas iirep^opievov. 



XVI 

Testimonium. — Theognis 719-724 (quoted also by Stobaeiis iv 33, 7). 

1. labv rot irXovTovaiv Sry {6(toi$ Stobaeus) woXvs dpyvpds icrriv Theognis. 
3. fidva raOra : to. S^oura Theognis (rdde iravra Stobaeus). 4. irXevprj: irXevpah 
Theognis. 5. ^wrju kuI ravr : Srav 8^ Ke tQv Theognis. 6. 7^/377 I. M. L. : 7^/3r; 
Plutarch, Sintenis. ijfiy avv 5' cbprj : tj/St; <rvv 8' iopj} Plutarch, Sintenis : wprj aw 5* 
tJ/St/ Theognis. dp/j-dSia Bergk : dpfiovia Plutarch : apfioSia Theognis (apii68iov 
Vatic. 915), Sintenis. 

XVI a 

Testimonium. — These four verses follow immediately after Solon xvi in 
Theognis and may be fairly regarded as part of Solon's poem. All ten verses 
are quoted by StobaeiLS (iv 33, 7) under the name of Theognis. 

8. 'AlSeu : diSriv Stobaeus. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 149 

XVI 

He was never dazzled by riches. Indeed, he says that the XVI 
riches of him who "hath much silver and gold, fields of 
wheat-bearing land, horses, and mules, are no greater than his 
whose only possessions are these : stomach, lungs, and feet that 
bring him joy, not pain ; the blooming charms, perhaps, of boy 
or maiden ; and an existence ever harmonious with the chang- 
ing seasons of life." 



In these things is the true wealth of mortal men ; for no XYI a 
man, when he passeth to Hades' realm, carrieth with him all his 
vast hoard. No ransom that he can give enableth him to es- 
cape death or dire disease or the creeping evil of old age. 



150 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

XVII-XIX 

Plutarch Solon iii : on 8' avrov iv tt) twv irevi^rcov fieplhi fjidX- 
Xou Tj TT) TOiv irXova L(DV erarre, hrfKov ecmv Ik tovtcov 

XVII TToXkol yap TrXoirrovcn KaKoC, dyaOol Se irevovTai- 

dXX' r)fxel<; avroicr ov StafJieLxpoixeOa 
ttJs dp€Trj<; top ttXovtov, eVet to fxev efiweSop aleu, 
^pT7/xaTa 8' dvd pojTTOiv aXXore dkXo^ ^X^^' 

. . . eviOL Be (paaLv, on ical tov'^ v6/jlov^ €7r€)(^6Lp7]crev evreCva^i et? 
€7ro9 e^eve'yKelv, fcal Sta/jLvrj/jLovevovai ttjv ap'^rjv ohrco'^ e'^ovaav 

[XVIII] UpojTa fxev ev^^cofjieaOa Au KpoviSy f^aaikrji 

OecrfJiol^; rotcrSe tij^v dyaOr^v koI /cuSo? oTrdaaaL. 

. . . iv Se Tol^; (^vaiKol'i aTrXoO? eaTi Xiav koI ap')(^alo^, o)? BriXov 
kic tovtwv 

eK v€(f)€X7]<; TreXeTai ')(^l6vo'^ fjuevo^ rjhe ')^aXd^r)^' 
/3povTr) 8' i/c Xa/JLirpd'^ jLverac darepoTrr]^;. 

^^^ i^ dpejjicov 8e OdXacrcra rapdaaeTaC rjv Si ris avrr^v 

fjLT) KLpfj, Trdvraiv iarl St/catorarTy. 

XX 

Plutarch Solon viii 2 : eXeyela Be Kpvc^a avvOeh fcal jxeXeTrjaa^^ 
wcTTe Xeyetv diro ar6/jLaT0<;, e^eTr-^BTjcrev et? rrjv djopav d(f)vco ttlXC- 
Blov 7repL6e/JLevo<;. 6')(Xov Be ttoXXov avvBpafiovTO'^ dva/Sd^; eVt top 
Tov Kr)pvK0<; XiOov ev o)By Bte^rjXOe rrfv iXeyelav, ^? eaTtP cip')(r)' 

XX AuT09 KTjpv^ rjXOov d(f)* lfjLepTrj<; SaXafJilvo^^ 

KocTfJiov iireajv (pSrjp dvT dyoprj<s Oefxepo^. 

TOVTO TO TTOLTifJLa SaXtt/il? eTnyeypaTTTai ical (TTi-)((iiv eKaTOV ecTi^ 
'^aptevTQx; irdw ireiroirjpievov. 

XVII 

Tkstimonia. — 1-4. Theo,£,nii.s315-318. 2-4. V\\\tdi>TQ\\ De tranquillitate animi 
13, p. 472 0. IMutarcli Quornodo ({uis suos in virtute sentlat profectus G, p. 78 c. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 151 

XVII-XIX 

That he rated himself a member of the chiss of persons in 
moderate circumstances rather than among the rich, is clear 
from the following : 

" Many undeserving men are rich, while their betters are XVII 
poor. But we will not exchange what we are for what they 
have, since the one abide th while the other passe th from man 
to man.*' 

. . . Some say that he attempted to write his laws in 
hexameter verse before publishing them, and these are given as 
the opening lines : 

" First pray we to King Zeus, son of Cronus, that he grant [xvill] 
good luck and glory to these ordinances." 

... In scientific matters he held simple and old-fashioned 
views, as one may see from the following : 

" Out of the cloud come snow and hail in their fury, and 
the thunderbolt springeth from the lightning's flash." 

" The sea is tossed by the winds : but if no wind stir it, it XIX 
is of all things the most peaceable." 

XX 

He secretly composed a poem in elegiac verse. Yhen, after 
he had committed it to memory, he rushed out suddenly into 
the market place, with a small cap on his head, and when a great 
crowd had gathered, he mounted the herald's rostrum and 
chanted the poem which begins : 

" As my own herald have I come from beloved Salamis, to XX 
sing you a poem I have fashioned in lieu of a speech." 

This poem, which is one hundred lines long, is entitled 
" Salamis," and is a very beautiful composition. 

Basilius Magnus Sermo de legendis libris gentilium ii 177 (= vol. 31. p. 575 
Migne). 2.3. Plutarch De capienda ex inimicis utilitate 11, p. 92 e. 
1. yap : tol Theognis. 2. avroia : tovtois Theognis. 



152 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

XXI-XXII 

Plutarch Solon xiv 5 f. : tovtwv ovSev i^e/cpovcre tov ^oXcova 
rr)? avTov irpoaipea-eco^, aXka irpo^ fiev rov^; (f>L\ov(; elirev, w? Xeye- 
rai, KoXov fiev elvai T7)v rvpavvlha yaypiov^ ovk e')(€Lv Se airo^aacv, 
TT/oo? Se <t>a)KOV iv rol<; iroir^p^aai ypacfxav 

XXI el Se yrjs, (t>v^^\ icjieicrdiJLrjv 

ov Ka6r]\jjdiJir)p fxidva^ kol KaTaicr^vva'; KXeos, 
ovSev atSeu/xaf irXiov yap &Se vuKijcreLV So/ceo) 
5 irdvTa^ dv0 pmirov^; 

odev evBrjXov, on Kal irpo tt)? vo/xoOecria^ /JLeydXi^v Bo^av el'x^ev. 
a Se (^vyovTO's avrov rrjv rvpavvLha ttoXXoX KarayeXSyvre^ eXeyov^ 
yey pac^ev ovrco^;' 

XXII OVK €(j)V ^okcoi^ /^aOvcfypcoj^ ovSe ^ovXijeL^ dvrjp' 

iaOXd ydp Oeov hih6vTO<; avro? ovk eSefaro* 
TTEpL^akcov 8' dypav^ dyacr9€l<; ovk iiricnTacrev /xeya 
hiKTvovj OvfjLOv 6* djjiapTrj Kal (f)peva)v d7rocr(j)a\€L<;. 
5 rjOeXov ydp Kev Kparrjcra^, ttXovtov d(f)0ovov Xa^cou 
Kal Tvpavvevaa^ ^ KOrjvcDv puovvov rjpLepav /xta^', 
daKos varepop SeSdpOac KaiTiTeTplcfyOaL y€vo<;. 

raura roi/? ttoXXois kol ^avXov<; irepX avTOV ireirolrjKe Xeyovra^. 

XXIII 

Plutarch Solon xxv 5 : 
XXIII epyfjiaai yap ev /LteyaXot? Tracrtv dhelv xaXenov, 

0)9 avT6<; €Lpr]K€. 

XXII 

5. ■^^cXoi/ Xylander : ■^^eXev Plutarch, Sintenis. 7. do- ^6s Bergk (ex codici- 
biLs (luibiLsdaiii a Sintenis Jieglectis) : avrbs codices plurimi, Sinteiiis. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 153 

XXI-XXII 

None of these things shook Solon from his resolution. He 
remarked to his friends, as the story goes, that the tyrant's 
seat is a fine place, but that there is no way down from it ; 
among his poems there is one addressed to Phocus, in which he 
says : 

'' If I spared my fatherland and did not lay hold upon a des- xxi 
potism of harshness and force, staining and defiling my reputa- 
tion thereby, I feel no shame for that. I believe that in this 
way I shall so much the more show my superiority over other 
men." 

This passage shows clearly that he enjoyed considerable dis- 
tinction even before the adoption of his laws. When he turned 
his back on the tyranny, many people ridiculed him in language 
whose tone he has preserved in the following lines, which he 
puts into the mouth of one of his critics : 

" Solon is not gifted with wisdom and sagacity. God put XXII 
good things into his hands, but he failed to grasp them. He 
cast his net and caught his fish, but, in his wonder and delight, 
he did not draw it in : both his courage and his wit were un- 
equal to the occasion. If I could seize the power, acquire vast 
wealth, and be lord of Athens for but a single day, I would give 
my body to be flayed for a wineskin and consent to the annihi- 
lation of my race." 

This is the opinion which, in Solon's own poem, the ignorant 
majority is supposed to express concerning him. 



XXIII 

For, as he says himself, " in great undertakings it is difficult 
to please all." 



XXIII 



154 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 



XXIV-XXV 



Plutarch Solon xxvi : Trpwrov fiev ovv eh AXyvirTov a(f>Uero 

XXIV NetXou inl TTpo^orjcn Kava)^LOo<; iyyvOev aKTrj^. 

. . . Koi auTO^ oe fxe/jLvyrat to 3 avvoLKLa/JLOU [sc. rou tmv ^oXcov 

TMV eV KuTrpo)]" 7rpoaa<yopevaa^ yap ev ral<; eXeyeiai? rov 

^iXoKvirpcv ^ ^ 

[^cLvacrcrcDV 

XXV vvv 8e' (i>r)orL^ av puev ^oXiouaL noXvi' ^(povov IvOdh* 

TijvSe ttoXlv vat :l<; kol yzvo<; vpilrepov' 

avrap 6/xe ^vv vrji Oorj K\eLvrj<; olttj vrjaov 

dcTKYjOrj TrepLTTOL Kvirp <; loare^avo^' 

5 OLKLCTfJia) o inl r^oe ^dpiv koX /cDoo? OTTct^ot 

icrOXou KOL vocTTOv TTarptS* €9 rjpL^Teprjv, 



XXVI 

Plutarch Comparison of Solon and Publicola i 4 : en rolvvv 
oh TT/Do? ^(.p^vepvov avTei7ro)i> ire^A ^poi^ov ^(d')<^ eTTLTre^coi^rj/ce, 

XXVI /xT^Se piOL a/cXaucrrog 9duaTo<; /xdXot, aWa ^iXoiaiv 

KaWeiTTOLpLL ^aj^wi' dXyea kol crroi^a^as, 

evhaipova rov TioirXuKoXav dvhpa iroiel. 

XXV 

Testimonium. — 1-4. Fiia ^rait (Westermann, p. 53). 

XXVI 

Tkstimonia. — Stol)aeus IV liv {ireol rrivdovs) 3. Cicero Tusculanae Dispu- 
tationes i 40, 117 (a Latin translation of the couplet). 

2. KaWeiiroLijn Stobaeus, Cic^ero (lirujuamus): TroiT^o-ai/it Plutarch, Sinteni.s. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 155 

XXIV-XXV 

First he went to Egypt and spent some time (to borrow his 
own words) "at the outpouring of the Nile, hard by the Can- XXIV 
obic shore." 

. . . He mentions the consolidation* himself in the elegiac 
poem addressed to Philocyprus, in which he says : 

" Now mayest thou reign long over the people of Soli, and XXV 
may their city long be the dwelling-place of thee and of thy 
race. And may Cypris of the violet crown carry me in a swift 
ship unscathed from the illustrious isle, shedding upon these 
habitations glory and honor, and granting to me safe return to 
my native land." 

XXVI 

Furthermore, the lines which form a part of the reply which 
he addressed to Mimnernus concerning the duration of human 
life — " May my death come not unlamented, and may I leave XXVI 
to my friends when I die a heritage of grief and tears " — argue 
that Publicola was a happy man. 

* I.e., of the city of Soli in Cyprus. 



156 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

XXVII-XXVIII 

Plutarch Amatorius 751 c : 6 Aacfyvalo^; ' ev ye vrj A/' ' ecfyj] ' rov 
^6\o)vo<; i/JLvria6ri<; kol ')(^priaT60V avrw yvoy/xovL rov ipcoTL/cov avhpo^^ 

XXVII ecrO* rj^T)^ iparoiaiv eV avOeai 7Taiho(^ikri(Trj 

ixrjpcov lfjL€Lpa)v /cat yXvKepov aTOfxarof;. 

. . . oOei^, ol/xat, Koi 6 ^6\(ov iicelva fxev eypayjre veo^ wv en 
Koi ' a7repijiaTo<i ttoWov /jLearo's ' (W9 o liXaTcov <f)r}aL' ravrl Be 
7rpeaffvTr}(; yevofjievo^, — 

XXYIII ipya 8e Kv7Tpoyevov<; vvv pioi <^iXa /cat Alovilxtov 

Kol Movcrewi^, a TiOrja avhpdcnv ev(j)pocrvva<;, — 

coairep i/c ^aX?;? Kal ^et/-tw^'09 Kal rcbv TrachiKcav epojTcov ev tlvl 
yaXrjVT) rrj irepl ydfiov Kal (fyiXoaocfyiav Oefievo^i rov pCov . . .' 

XXIX 

Pollux Onomasticon x 103: koi tyhiv he avrrjv [sc. tt^v Ov- 
eiav^ KeKXrjfcaai ^oXcov re ev toI<; ld/jL0OL<i Xeycjv, 

XXIX cnrev^ovo'i o ol p.ev lyOiv^ ol oe (TL\(f)iov, 

ol 8* 6^o<^, 
Kal €TL aa^earepov 'AvTL(pdvi]<i ktX. 

XXVII 
Testimonia. — 2. Athenaeus xiii 602 e. Apuleiiis De ma^/ia 9. 

XXVIII 

Testimonia. — Plutarch Solon xxxi 3. Plutarch Septem mpientum convir- 
vium 13, 155 f. Hermiae Alexandriiii in Platoiiis Phaedrum SchoUa, p. 38 
(Couvreur) (= p. 78 Ast). Volumina Herculanea xi 52 (vid. Gomperz, Wiener 
Studien ii 7 f.). 

1. Kvirpoyevovs : KTITPOTEX . . . Vol. Herculan. 2. TLd-qa : ridricnv 
Hermias. 

XXIX 

1. (xirevbovai. 5' Casaubon: trevalb' Dindorf (MSS. reported by Bergk thus: 
irevalb' vulgo, C : ffirevaiba B : <r7rei;5' A). 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 157 

XXVII-XXVIII 

" Your allusion to Solon," said Daphnaeus, '* is entirely 
apropos. He may be taken as an authority on amorous men. 
You recall the lines : 

'• While, in the fair garden of youth, one is stirred by the XXVII 
love of boys, burning with desire for sweet lips and rounded 
limbs.' 

. . . For this reason I believe that Solon wrote the verses 
which I have just quoted when he was still quite young and, as 
Plato says, 'teeming with life.' These others he must have 
produced in his later years : 

'In the works of Dionysus and the Muses and of her who XXYIII 
was born in Cyprus now is my delight, for they bring men joy 
and cheer.' 

He had escaped from the surge and tempest of the love 
which men feel for boys and brought his life into the still waters 
of wedlock and philosophy ..." 

XXIX 

It [^.e., a mortar] is also called ljSl^ by Solon, who says in 
his iambics — 

" Some are devoted to reels, some to highly flavored dishes, XXIX 
and some to sour wine " — 

and still more clearly by Antiphanes, etc. 



158 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

XXX 

Phrynichus the Grammarian Ecloga ccclxxiv : kol yap 
iTLTVo^ TO 6KK€KOfcta/ji€vov CTt KoX vvv fcoKKCova XeyovaLv ol TToWol 
6pOcb<>. Kal yap ^oXcov ev toI<^ Troir^fxaai ovrco ^(^prJTaL^ — 

XXX KOKKojva^; aXXo9, drepof; Se cn^cra/xa. 

XXXI 

Clement of Alexandria Strornata V xii 81, 1 : aocjicorara 
TOivvv yeypaTTTac rep ^6\(ovi ravra irepl Beov- 

XXXI yvcofxoavvqf; 8* dc^ai^e? '^akeTTcoraTOP icrri vorjo-at 

jxirpov, o 817 TTOLVTcov 7T€LpaTa fJLOvvov e;)(ei. 

XXXIl 

Clement of Alexandria Stromata V xiv 129, 6 : eU6T(D<; dpa 
'LoXayv 6 *AOrjvalo'!i ev rat? i\ey€iaL<;^ Kal aiVo? KaTaKo\ovdr)aa<^ 
'Ho-tdSo), 

XXXII TTOLVTrj 8' dOavdrcov d(j)avrj^ v6o<; dvOpcoTTOicnv^ 

ypd(f>6L. 

XXXllI 

Athenaeus Deipnosophistae xiv 645 f: FOTPOS on TrXa- 
/covvTO<; eZSo? o So\ft)i^ eV toZ? 'laftySot? (fyrja-LV 

XXXIII TTLVOVCTL KOL TpCJyOVCnV ol fJL€V tT/Ota, 

ol 8' dprov avTOiv^ 01 8e avpLfxeixLypiivov^ 
yovpov^ (j^aKolcTL' KeWi 8' ovTe TrefXjxdTcov 
direcTTLv ovSep, dcrcra t dvOpconoLcn yrj 
6 (f)€peL jJLeXaLva, Trdvra 8' d(j)96i'(o<; irdpa. 



XXXI 



Testimonhm. — Tlieodoretus i 73. 
2. iravTOJv : trdvTa Theodoretus. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 159 

XXX 

Tlie kernel which is extracted from a pine-cone is still called 
KOKKwv by most people, correctly ; for Solon uses the word so in 
his poems : 

''Pomegranate-seeds one, and another sesame." XXX 

XXXI 

Very profound, therefore, is the following observation of 
Solon concerning (iod: 

" Difficult indeed is it to conceive the inscrutable measure XXXI 
of his wisdom, within whicli alone abideth the power to bring 
all things to fullillment." 

XXXII 

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Athenian poet Solon, 
too, should say in one of his elegiac poems, following Hesiod : 

" At every turn the mind of the immortals is hid from XXXII 
men. " 

XXXIII 

That a gouros is a sort of flat cake is apparent from the fol- 
lowing iambic lines by Solon : 

" They drink their wine, and with it they nibble itria^ or XXXIII 
artos^ or gouroi mixed with lentils. There one finds no lack of 
sweetmeats or of all the other good things which the black earth 
bears for men : everything is at hand in abundance." 

XXXII 

Testimonium. — Eusebius Praep. Ev. xiii 688 c. 
irdvTTi : Trdfiirap Eusebius. 

XXXIII 

4. oddev, daaa r Ahrens : oiid' ivaaaev MSS., Kaibel (oiiS^v &<7(t &p VL, ac- 
cording to Bergk). 



160 



SOLON THE ATHENIAN 



XXXIV-XXXV 

Diogenes Laertius i 47 : r)V he ra iXeyela ra fxaktara Ka6a- 
ylrdfjLePa tcjv 'Adrjvaicov rdSe' 

XXXIY €Lr]v Srj tot iyco ^o\e'ydvSpiO<; rj '%LKiviTy)<^ 

dvTL y ' A$r)vaLOv, iraTpih^ d/x€ti//a/xej^09* 
ah\ia yap dv (j>dTL<; rjSe /xer' dvOpoiiToiai yivoiTO 
'Arrt/cos ovtos dprjp to)v SaXafJLLvacjieTwv. 



XXXV 



XXXYI 



XXXVII 



iOfxep €19 SaXa/xii^a, fxa^^rjcroixepoL irepi vrjcrov 
lfxepTrj<^ ^akeirov t oXa^o^ dTTcocrofJiepoL. 

XXXVI 

Diogenes Laertius i 49 : /cal rj y8ouX?J, TieiaLaTparihai oWc?, 
fxaiveaOai eXeyov avTOV 66ev elTre ravri' 

Setfei dkrjOeLTjs e? fxecrov ip^ofxivrj^;. 

XXXVII-XXXVIII 

Diogenes Laertius i 60 f. : (fyaal S' avrov koI yLifxvepvov ypd- 
ylravTO^y 

At yap uTep vovcrwv re koX apjaXecov /jieXeBcovecov 

e^T]KOVTa€TT] fXolpa Ki')(Ql OaVUTOV, 

eiTLTLixoivra avro) elirelv 

dW^ el fxoi Kav vvv en TretcreaL, efeXe tovto, 
fjLTj^e fieyaip* otl aev toIov iirei^paadpuqv^ 



XXXIV 

Testimonium. — 1.2. Plutarch Prcterepta gerendae repuhlicae 17, 813 f. 
4. ^a\a/xiva(t)eTu>v Ls. Vossius et Hei'lliailll : "^oXauij' dip^vTwi' vulg. : SaXa- 
fjLiv d<p^TU)u Stephani codd. 



THE FRAGMENTS OP SOLON'S POEMS 161 

XXXIV-XXXV 

The elegiac verses which most stirred the feelings of the 
Athenians were as follows : 

" Then may 1 change ni}^ fatherland and become a native of XXXIV 
Pholegandros or Sicinos instead of an Athenian. For I should 
soon be hearing men say : '• He is of Attica, one of those who 
gave up Salamis ! ' '' 

And again : 

" Let us go to Salamis and fight for the island of our hearts XXXV 
and rid ourselves of the bitter shame." 



XXXVI 

The council, which was composed of partisans of Pisistratus, 
said that he was mad ; whereupon he spoke as follows : 

" This madness of mine a little time will reveal to the men XXXVI 
of the city in its true meaning, when the truth itself cometh out 
into the open." 

XXXVII-XXXVIII 

This story also is told of him. Mimnernus had said in one 
of his poems : 

" May it be my lot to live a life untroubled by illness and 
anxiety and to die in my sixtieth year." 



XXXV 

Testimonia. — Apostolius ix 6 b. Arsenius xxxi 52. Schol. Demosthenes 
De falsa legaUone 251 (ed. Dindorf, vol. viii, p. 438). 

2. T : omisit Schol. Demosthenes. diruao/j.ei'oi : dTrwo-d^ei'ot Apostolius, 
Arsenius, Schol. Demosthenes. 

XXXVII 

1. TovTo BFi : TovTov PF2, Cobct, Dlels (sc. (xtIxov). 2. toIov MSS. : Xyov 



162 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

/cat fxeTaTTOLTjaoVj AtyvacrraSr^, wSe 8' aetSe* 
oySajKOPTaeTT] fiolpa kl^ol Oavdrov. 

Tbiv he ahofievwv avrov iart rdSe' 

XXXVIIl] Il€(j>v\ayfJievo<; dvhpa eKaaror opa 

fjLTj KpvTTTov iy\o<; e^CxiV KpahiTj 
(jyatSpcp TrpoaeveTTTj irpocrcoTra), 
yXwcrcra oe ol of^^ojjivOof; €/c 
6 ixekaiv7)<; ^pevo<; yeycjvjj. 

XXXIX 

Proclus On the Timaeus 25 f : r) fiev laropia rj Kara to '26- 
Xcovo^ jevo^ Kal rrjV YiXdrcovo^ irpo'^ avrov avyyevetav roiavrr) rt? 
iariv 'Fj^7]K€aTL8ov Trat^e? iyevovro 26X(ou /cat Apco7ri8r}<;, koI 
ApcoTriSov fxev }LpiTLa<sy ov fxrjVfiove'uei fcal 26\cov iv rf) 7roir)(Tei 
Xeycov 

XXXIX eiTTepevai KpiTLT) ^avOorpi^i Trarpo^ aKoveiv' 

ov yap apapripoo) TTeiaeTai rjyepopi' 

KpiTLOv Be KaXXato-;^/309 Kal T\av/c(oi>, K.aWaL(T^pov Be av Kpiria^ 

OVTO<^. 

xxxvn 

BiT^k, Cobet. 3. XL-yvaaTdb-r) Berg^k ex Suida : vai-yiacxTabT] W : ayiaa-raSi Pl : 
aiyiaffTaSi F. 

xxxvm 

2. 67X0S MSS. : ex^os Cobet (" Casauboniis Menagiusque coni/' — Hiibner). 
5. fJLeXaivTjs : fxeXavijs Cobet. 

XXXIX 

Testimoma. — 1.2. Schol. Plato Timaeus 20 e. 1. Aristotle jR^eioric i 15, 
1375 b. 

1. eiir^ixevai : eiTreii' /xoi Aristotle. ^avOdrptxi- '• 7ri;p/36Tpix' Aristotle. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 163 

Whereupon Solon rebuked him in the foUowing lines : 

'' But if even now thou wilt be persuaded by me, strike this XXXVll 
out and take no offense because I find matter in thee to criticize. 
Change thy poem, thou scion of sweet song, and let the strain 
run thus : ' May it be my lot to die in my eightieth year.'" 

Among his lyrics is the following : 

"Watch, with caution, every man, lest he have a sword [XXX VI ii | 
hidden in his heart while he speaketh to thee with glad coun- 
tenance, and lest out of a black soul his tongue utter words of 
double meaning." 

XXXIX 

The prevailing view concerning the family of Solon and his 
relationship to Plato is substantially as follows. Execestides 
had two sons, Solon and Dropides ; and Dropides' son was 
Critias, whom Solon himself mentions in the poem containing 
the verses : 

" Say to Critias of the golden locks that he should hearken xxxix 
to his father ; if he follow his advice, he will find him no lack- 
brained guide." 

The sons of Critias were Callaeschrus and Glauco, and 
finally Callaeschrus' son was the Critias of the present passage. 



164 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

XL 
Stobaeus Eclogae iii 9 {ir^pX SiKatoavvr]^^, 23 : SoXoji^o?. 

XL MvrjfxoavvT)^ /cat Zrjpo<; OXvyLiriov ayXaa reKva, 

Movcrai TlteptSeg, k\vt€ fiou ev)(o^evcx)' 
oX/Sop jJiOL 77/309 Oeajp fxaKcipayv hoje koX irpo^ andpTajp 
avO pcoTTOiv alei ho^av ^X^^^ dyaOijv, 
5 elvai 8e yXvKvv cSSe c^iXoicr', e^^potcrt Se niKpov, 
TOLCTL pikv alholov, TolcTi Se SeLPov ISelv. 
XP^jf^oLTa 8' Lfjieipa) fxeu eyeiv^ dSt/cw? 8e TreTrdcrdaL 

ovK iOeko)' iravTO)^ varepov rj\6e Slkt]. 
ttXovtov 8* ov fJLev Swctl OeoL, TrapayiyveTai dpSpl 
10 €/x7re8o9 e/c vedrov 7TvOfjLei>o<; et9 Kopv(f>y]i'' 

6v o dvop€<^ fjLaiojPTaL v(j)' v^pLo<;, ov /caret Kocrpiov 

epx^eraLy aXX' dSiKota epyixaai Tret^ojutez^o? 
ou/c iOekoiv eneraL' ra^ew? 8' dvapuicryeTai drrj' 
dp)(r} 8* ef 6\iyov yiyverai coare irvpo^, 
15 (j)\avpr] fxkv to irpcoTOu, dvurjpr) 8e TeXevra' 
ov yap 87) ^' SvrjToZa v/3pio^ €pya vreXet. 
dXXct Zeu9 TrdvTOiv i(f)opa TeXo<;, i^aTTivrj<^ 8e 

cocTT dvefjio^; v€(f>€Xa<; alxpa SiecrKeSacrev 
r}pLv6<;, 69 TToi'TOv TrokvKvp.ovos dTpvyeroLO 
20 TTvOp^eva KLT/7J(Ta<;, yrjv /cctra 7Tvpo(j)6pov 

8r;oj(Ta9 /caXct epya, Oecov €So<; aliTvi' iKdvei 
ovpavov^ alOpiiqv 8' aurt? e6r]Kev iSeiv' 

XL 

Testimonia. — 1. Clement of Alexandria Strom. VI ii 11, 2. 7.8. Plu- 
tarch Solon ii 3 ; Gomp. Sol. and Publ. i T). G5-70. Tlieoijnis 585-590 ; Stobaeus 
iv 47 {irepl rQ)v trap i\iri5a), KJ (the verses are here assi^i^ned to Theof?ms); Bois- 
sonade Anecd. Graem vol. 4, p. 455. 71-76. Theoi^niis 227-232. 71. Aristotle 
Folitics i 8, 125(5 1), 34; riutarch JJe cnpiditate dimtiarum 4, 524 e ; Basilius 
Magnus Senno de lej/endis lihris (/entiliiim 183. 

11. fxaioivTai l.M.L. : tl/jlCjctiv S M"^ A, Heiise. 13. drT] A^: Att) other 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 165 

XL 

O ye fair children of jNlemory and Olympian Zeus, ye Muses XL 
of Pieria, hear me as I prayo Grant, that J may be blessed with 
prosperit}^ by the gods, and that among all men I may ever en- 
joy fair fame ; tliat 1 may be as a sweet savor to my friends and 
a bitterness in the mouth of my enemies, by tlie ones respected, 
by the others feared. Wealth I do indeed desire, but ill-gotten 
wealth I will not have : punishment therefor surely cometh 
Avitli time. Wealth Avhich the gcxls give, cometh to a man as an 
abiding possession, solid from the lowest foundation to the top; 
but that which is sought with presumptuous disregard of right 
and Avrong, cometh not in the due course of nature. It yieldeth 
to the persuasion of dishonest practices and followeth against its 
will ; and soon there is joined thereto blind folly which leadeth 
to destruction. Like fire, it taketh its beginning from small 
things; but, though insignificant at first, it endeth in ruin. 
For the works of unprincipled men do not continue long. Zeus 
watcheth all things to the end. Often, in the spring season, a 
wind riseth suddenly and disperse th the clouds, and, stirring up 
the depths of the surging, barren sea, and laying waste the fair 
works of the husbandman over the surface of the corn-bearing 
earth, cometh to the lofty habitation of the gods in heaven and 
bringeth the blue sky once more to view ; the sun shineth forth 
in his beauty over the fertile earth, and clouds are no longer to 
be seen. Like such a sudden wind is the justice of Zeus. He 
is not, like mortal men, quick to wrath for each offense ; but no 
man who hath an evil heart ever escapeth his watchful eye, and 
surely, in the end, his justice is made manifest. One man 
payeth his ^penalty early, another late. If the guilty man him- 
self escape and the fate of the gods come not upon him and 
overtake him not, it cometh full surely in aftertime : the inno- 
cent pay for his offense — his children or his children's children 
in later generations. 



V 



160 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

XdfjLTTeL 8* rjeXCoLO fxevos Kara Triova yaiav 

25 TOLavrr) Tiiqvo^ TreXerat ricrt?, ovh^ i(f)' iKdcTTO)^ 
cjcnrep OviqTO<^ dvrfp, yiyveraL 6^v)(oko'i' 
alii 8* ov e keXijOe 8ta)Lt7rey3e9 o(Jtl<^ akirpov 

OvjjLov €)(€', 7rdvTa)<; 8' e? T€Xo<^ i^€(j)dvr]' 
aAA o /xsz/ avTLK eTeiaev, o o vcTepov ol oe (pvycoaip 
30 a^Toi /AT786 OeoJT/ fjiolp^ iinovcra kl^jj, 

rjXvOe TrdpTO)'? avTi<;' dvaiTioi epya tlvovctlv 

ri TTolSef; rovTOiv rj yevo^; i^oiricro). 
dvrjTol 8' a>8€ voevfiev, o/xoi? aya^o? re /ca/cog t€, 
iureivoyv avTO<; So^ai/ e/ca<TT09 ^X^^^-i 
35 TT/otV Ti TTaOelu' Tore 8' avTiK oSvpeTaC d)(pL 8e rovrov 
^daKovTe^; KOv<^ai<; iXirLcn TeprTOfxeOa. 
^wcrrt? /xej^ j^oucrotcrt^' vtt' dpyakerj(Ji TnecrOfj, 

o)? vyirf^ ccrrat, roGro KarecfypdcraTO' 
aXXo9 8etXo9 eoit' dyaOos SoKel efjifxevai dvyjp, 
40 /cat fcaXo9, fxopcj^rjv ov ^apUacTav e^wr. 

€t 8e Tt? d-^pyjjjiojv, 7revLr)<; Se fiLP epya yStarat, 

KTTJcrecrOaL 7rdvTa)<^ x/^T^/xara ttoXXo, 8oK:€r. 
cTTreuSeL 8* dWoOev aXXo?" 6 /xei^ Kara ttoj^toi' dXarat 
eV vTjvalv xpTjl^cov otfca8e KepS3<; dyecv 
45 l^OvoevT, dvep^niai (j>opevixevo<; dpyakioicnv^ 
(^eihoiky^v ^VXV'^ ov^efiLav Oipuevo^' 
aXXo9 yi^j^ TCfxvcop iroXvSzvSpeov et? eviavTov 
karpeveiy toIclv KafnrvX' aporpa /xeXet* 



MSS., Hense. 27. oii e Hermann, llense : oUre S. 31. aCns Brunck, Hense : 
ayr^K S. 32. if y^vos i^oTrlau) correction by second hand in cod. Tar. 1985, 
Ilense : Tjyeabvwv dwlau) S. 34. ivreivwv I. M. L. : iv dTjvrjv S^ : iv 5'qvfiv S 2, Tr., 
Voss : iiv br)vr)v llense. exeu/ I. M. L. : exei MSS., Hense. 35. avrlK Bamber- 
f^er, Hense : ai5Tts S. 42. KT-fiaeadai Bergk, Hense : KT-qaaadaL S. iravTws con- 
jecture in mari^in of (Jesneri, Hense: irdvTuv S. 48. Totffi.v : Tot<rt S. /xAet 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 167 

Thus all we men of mortal mold, good alike and bad, think, 
by straining every nerve, to win a fair name, each man for him- 
self by his own unaided efforts, until something befall him from 
without : then straightway cometh pain. Till then like gaping 
fools we amuse ourselves with empty dreams. He who is worn 
by cruel disease pondereth ever how one day he will be whole ; 
another, who is a coward, thinketh himself brave ; another still 
counteth himself handsome, though he have no beauty of body ; 
if one be penniless and subject to the toils of poverty, he as- 
sureth himself that he will sometime win great riches. 

One man seeketh Avealth from one source, another from an- 
other. This one wandereth in ships over the fishy deep in his 
eagerness to bring honie a profit, the sport of the cruel winds, 
staking his life ungrudgingly. Another, whose labor is with 
the curved plow, cleaveth the fertile soil, drudging the year 
round like a slave. Another learneth the arts of Athena and 
skillful Hephaestus and gathereth a livelihood by the work of 
his two hands. Another, trained by the grace of the Olympian 
Muses, understandeth to the full the sweet art of minstrelsy. 
Another hath been endowed by the Lord Apollo, who worketh 
from afar, with the gift of prophecy ; and, if the gods attend 
upon his ways, he discerneth, while it is still far off, the evil 
which approacheth his fellow. But it is sure that neither bird 
nor sacrificial victim will avert what Fate ordains. Others are 
physicians and practice the craft of Paeon, who knoweth many 
drugs. But no success crowneth their work : often great suf- 
fering groweth out of a little pain, and none can bring relief by 
administering soothing drugs ; often, again, one who is over- 
come by cruel disease may be straightway restored to health 
merely by the touch of a hand. 

Destiny bringeth to mankind both good and evil, and the 
gifts which come from the immortal gods are not to be refused. 
Danger, we may be sure, followeth all the works of men, and 
none knoweth, at its beginning, which way an undertaking will 



168 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

aXXo9 ^AOrjpaiTjf; re kol 'Hc^atcrrou 7roXvTe)(pea) 
60 epya 8a€t9 ^eipolv fuXXeyerac ^iorov^ 

dXXo<; ^OkvfJLTndSajp Movaecui^ irdpa Swpa 8t8a^^et9, 

IjxepTTJf; (Tocf)L'r]<; jxerpov iiricTTdpievof;' 
dXXov pdvTiv edrjKev dva^ eKdepyo^; * AttoXXcop^ 
€yvoi 8' dv^pl KaKov TiqXodev ip^opievov^ 
55 (h crvpopapTijaajcrL Oeoc Ta 8e popcnp.a TrdvTO}^ 
ovre Tt9 olcopo<^ pvaerai ov6^ Upd' 
aXXoL ^alctj^'o? 7ToXv(f)app.dKov epyov e^ovre^ 

lr)TpoL' KOL Tola-' ovSev eireari TeXo<;' 
TToXXdKL 8' ef oXtyy]^ 68^179 peya yiyverai dXyo<^, 
60 KovK dv Tt9 XvaaiT rjTTia (f)dppaKa Sov^' 

Tov 8e /cafcatg vovcroici KVKcLp.ei'ov dpyaXeau^; re 

dxpdpevo^ ^eipOLv alxjja riOiqcr vyirj. 

pLOipa Se TOL 6vr)Toicn KaKov (fjepeu rjSe /cat ecrOXov' 

Owpa 8' d(f)VKTa Oecov yiyverai dOavdrojv. 

65 irdcTi 8e roL Kiuhvvo^ in epypacrtVy ovSe T19 olSev, 

fi p^iXXei a^rjcreiv, ^prjpaTo^ dp^op^evov 

dXX' 6 pep ev epheiv 7reLpcopiepo<; ov irpovorjcraf; 

et? I'eydXrjp drrjv kol xaXenrfv eirecrev, 
Tco Se KaKOJS epSopTL Oeo<; irepl Trdvra SlSojctlv 
70 crvvTv^irfv dyaOrjv^ eKXvcriv acjypocrvvr]^. 

ttXovtov 8* ovSep reppa irecfyacrpepop dpSpdcrt /cetrat* 

OL ydp vvv rjpecov TrXeZcrrov e^oucrt /3lop, 
8i7rXacrtct)9 aTrevSovcn' tl<; olp Kopeaeiev diravTa^ ; 
KepSed TOi dvriTola ayiracrav dOdvaTOC 
75 drrf 8' ef avrcop dpa(f)aLPeTaL, rjp oirorap Zeu? 
TrepipTj Teicropevrjv, dXXore dXXos ^X^^' 

conjecture in margin of Gesner 1, Hense : fi^vei S. 50. epya 8aeis cod. Par. 19852, 
HeiLse: epyaXa els S^Yroh.: epyaXaelvTr.i 6p7aXaeis Voss. 51. Moi'tr^wi' Brunck, 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 169 

turn. One man, though he is trying to acquit himself well, 
falleth unaware into great and dire misfortune. Another, who 
playeth his part ill, is blessed with good luck by the gods and 
granted release from his folly. 

No visible limit is set to wealth among men. Even now 
those among us who have the largest fortune are striving with 
redoubled energy. AVhat abundance of riches could satisfy us 
all? Increase of goods cometh to mortals by the gift of the gods. 
But out of it appeareth the madness which leadeth to destruc- 
tion, and when Zeus sendeth this madness as a punishment to 
men, it lighteth first upon one and then upon another. 

Hense : Mova-duv S. 65. Trda-i 84 : iraa-iv Theognis, Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. 
oUev : oJde Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. 66. ■^ or ^ S, Tr. : rl Voss : ttt} or woT 
Theognis, Stobaeus iv : tto? Boissonade. /xiXXet axvf^^i-f : cx'n'^^'-v ixiWcL Theognis, 
Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. xrvi^o-tos : irp-rjyfxaTos Theognis, Stobaeus iv, Boisson- 
ade. 67. e5 '4pbeLv : evdoKLfxeiv Theognis, Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. 69. /caxws S^ : 
AcaXiDs S2, Tr., Voss, Theognis, Hense: KaXbv Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. ^p- 
dovTi : iroievvTi Theognis : ttolovvti Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. wepl :. /caXa Stobaeus 
iv, Boissonade. Sidioaiv : rt'^Tjo-ij' Theognis : t/^t/ci Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. 70. 
dya6r}v : dyadQv Stobaeus iv, Boissonade. iKKvaiv : ^k8v<tlv Stobaeus (SA), Bois- 
sonade. 71. dvbpdai KciTat : dvdpwiroLffi. {v) Theognis, Plutarch. 72. ij/xeup : 
TjfxCjv Tlieognis. 73. SiTrXao-^ojs : dLirXdaiov Theognis. 74. K^pded roi dv-qroU ijira- 
<rav dddvaroi : xPVI^o-'''"- '''=' OvrjTols yiuerai dcppoavvq Tlieognis. 75. avrCjp : avT^s 
Theognis. oirdrav : oTrore Theognis. 76. Teia-ofxivrjv : Ti.<Top.€VT]v S, Hense ("rec- 
tiusei'*, lie says) : reipo/xewts Theognis. aXXore Theognis : &\\ot4 t S (one inferior 
MS. has dWoT dv dXXos exet) : dWorev Hense. 



170 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

XLI 

Stobaeus Eclonac iv 34 (irepl rov ^lov on ^payv^ ktX)^ 23 : 
^oXcovo'^. 

XLI owSe /xa/ca/39 ouSet? TreXerat j3poT6<;^ dkXa iroviqpoi 

7raz^re<?, octou? dvy]Tov<^ iJeXto? KaOopa. 
XLII 

Choi'icius ijKcofJLLov et? ^apKiavov eiriaKOwov VaCpf)'s^ A6yo<i /3 
(ed. Boissonade, p. 107): 77} /i.e^' 7a/3 toZ? ivotfcovaiv eTrio-rarai 
<f)€p€iv oaa TLKTOVcrtv wpat^ vwria re iraaa kol /cadeL/JievT], koI. to tov 

XLII XiTrapT) KovpoTp6(\)0<;- 

XLIll 

Photius, s. V. 

XLIII Kiy^dveiv to eTre^ievaf ovrco^ ^6\(ov. 

XLIV 

Photius, s.v. 

XLIV pOvV TO TJSvafjLa- ^oXcov. 

XLV 

Diogenianus ii 99 : 
XLV \\p^(t)v OLKove Kal 8i/catwg /caSt/co)? : 

€K Td)V TOV ^6\covo<; eXejeicov TrapaiveTiKr). 

XLVI 
SchoL [Plato] de msto 374 a: WWd tol^ c5 ^wKpaTe^., ev rj 
iraXaid TrapotfiLa €)(^€L, otl ttoWcl ■xjrevSovTac clolSoi.^ TrapotfiLa, 

OTi 

XLVI 77oA.Xa \\}evhovTai ololSol. 

. . . ifJLVijcrOj] TavT7]<s Kal ^i\6'^opo<i iv 'At^/^o? a /cal ^oXcov 
'E\e7€iat9 /cat UXdrojv ivTavOa. 

XLI 

L /xd»caps Stephanas ; /ici*cap MSS., lleiise. 7r6j'77/9ot Grotius, Hense : 7ro;/T7poi 
(without accent) vS : irovripol M A Tr. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 171 

XLI 

Perfect bliss is a state denied to mortal men ; wretched are XLI 
all they upon whom the sun looks down. 

XLII 

The land skilleth to bear for them who dwell therein all that 
the seasons yield, sloping gently down, Avith smooth, wide- 
stretching lawns, and, as Solon hath it, " an abundant nurse of XLII 
children." 

XLIV 

povv : the seasoning. Solon. XLIV 

XLV 

" Obey the magistrates whether their commands be just or xLV 
unjust " : a hortatory proverb from Solon's elegiacs. 

XL VI 

But the old proverb is a sound one, you know, Socrates, 
that bards are guilty of many falsehoods.] Proverb: "Bards XLVI 
are guilty of many falsehoods." ... It is quoted by Philo- 
chorus in his History of Attica^ Bk. i, by Solon in one of his 
elegiac poems, and by Plato here. 

XLV 

Testimonia. — Apostolius iv 3. Arsenius v 60. Kramer (qui incerti 
auctoris collectionein proverbiorum Vaticanam ipsius manu descriptam ad Schei- 
dewinum misit) ii 32. 

'ApxcDi' Apostolius, Arsenius, Kramer : "Apxw;' Diogenianus. Kal 5tKaL(a% 
KaSiKOJS : kBlv diKrj kolv jxtj blKt). 

XLVI 

Testimonia. — Aristotle Metaphysica i 2, 983 a, 2. Plutarch Quomodo 
adulescens poetas audire debeat 2, 16 b. Gregorius Cyprius, Cod. Mosq. v 100, 2. 
Macarius vii 19. Apostolius xiv 41. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 
II. Commentary 



This line was often quoted, as may be seen from the number of Testi- 
monia, and, like other famous sayings, often incorrectly. The sentiment, 
with explicit reference to Solon, recurs in two other passages of Plato, be- 
sides the one in which it is directly quoted. In the Laches (188 ab) Nici;is 
expresses his opinion that the observance of Solon's principle, like the So- 
(;ratic dialectic, tends to keep a man's mind alert : old age alone will not bring 
wisdom. Again, in 189 a. Laches accepts the truth of Solon's words, but 
he desires a slight amendment : yrjpdaKiov TrokXa SLSdaKeadaL lOeXm viro 
)^7jaT(av fjLovov. Socrates himself, in the Republic (vii 536 d), denies tlic 
truth of the words : SoAwi/i yap ov TreiaTeov to<s yijpdaKwv rt? ttoAAol Swaro? 
fiavOdveiv, dAA' rjTTOV rj Tp£)(tLv, vuov 8k TravTC'* ot /xcyaAoi Koi ol ttoAAoi ttovol. 
Dio Chrysostom (xviii 254 M) evidently had the words in mind when be said : 
Kcu yap Tiou TraAatoiv ol dpKTTOL ov fiovov dKpdt,€iv fiav6dvovT€<i, oAAa Kai 
yqpda-KCLv t<f)a(rav. Cicero {De Senectute 8, 26) puts an allusion to the saying 
into the mouth of the elder Cato : "ut et Solonem versibus gloriantem vide- 
mus, qui se cotidie aliquid addiscentem dicit sen em fieri, et ego feci, qui litteras 
Graecas senex didici." Valerius Maxinuis (viii 7, 14) borrows Cicero's 
translation with a slight variation. 

8i8a(TK6p.€vo<;, which is paraphrased twice in Plato by p-avOdveiv and in 
Cicero by ddcHscenteni, is used as in Tyrtaeus xi 27 ^i^aa KicrBui TroXep^t^eiv ; 
Soph. A7it. 356 d(TTvv6povs 6pya<s iBiSd^aro, and Phil. 1387 BiSdaKov fiy 
dpaa-vveadai kukoI's. The middle voice of this verb more commonly means 
" to provide for the teaching of another." 

II 

The mistake referred to by Socrates (\f/ev8e6' 6 ttoltjtt^s:) would lie in say- 
ing that a man is happy by virtue of possessing things which are not dear to 
him. This quotation persuades Menexenus that things which are incapable 
of returning love may still be dear. Jowett, in his translation of Plato, lias 
misunderstood the passage and mistranslated the couplet. His translation 

175 



176 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

runs as follows: "Or shall we say that they do love them, although they 
are not beloved by them ; and that the poet was wrong who sings, ' Happy 
the man to whom his children are dear, and steeds having single hoofs, and 
dogs of the chase, and the stranger of another land.' " Tliis makes nonsense 
of the verses : a man is happy, not because he is fond of children and horses 
and dogs, but because he possesses them. But it is clear that both Socrates 
and Menexenus think the verses both reasonable and true. It is hard to 
discover what relation Jowett perceives between the quotation and Socrates' 
rather whimsical argument ; and the matter is made still more puzzling by 
his mistranslation of the phrase ov /x^vtol ^t'Aa ovra, " although they are not 
beloved by them." This translation begs the question : we do not know 
whether to. <f)i\a is equivalent to ra <f>L\ovvTa. 

A correct understanding of the passage must be based upon three obser- 
vations : (1) TO (f>LXovis a tertium quid, not identical with either to <f>LXovv 
or TO <f>LXovfxevov ; (2) dAAa shows that the quotation is intended to give the 
positive aspect of the negative in ov /xeVrot <^t Aa ovra, " these things are not 
dear, hut the reverse of what the poet claims for them" ; (3) <^tAot in the 
first line of the couplet can be naturally taken only as an attribute and not 
as a predicate. 

Hermias definitely attributes the couplet to Solon ; but he takes it in an 
erotic sense : ws KaAov tov ipav fJLvrjfxoveveL At'ycov oA/?tos <5 TratSes ktA. Lu- 
cian quotes the first line with a slight change which gives it a distinctly erotic 
turn : w TratSes vc'oi kol /jnovv^^eq lttttol. But in the Li/sis there seems to be 
no erotic implication ; indeed, the reference which Socrates makes to the love 
of parents for their babies seems to indicate that TratSes ^tAot means a man's 
own children. But where did the erotic notion first come from ? In the 
second book of Theognis, among his other erotic verses, we find the follow- 
ing (1253-6): 

"OA/5io?, CO 7ralSe<; re (\>1\ol koX ficovv^^e^ Ilttttol 
(drjpevrai re Kvve^; koI ^evot aWoBairoL. 

"Oo"Tt<? ^T] Trat^a? re (f)L\€l kol ficow^^^a^ Xttttov^ 
Kal Kvva^^ ov irore ol Ov/jlo'^ ev eix^poavvrj. 

Here the second couplet makes it certain that <^t Aot in the first couplet must 
be taken as predicate and that TratSt? are not the happy man's own children. 
In both of these points Theognis' understanding of the words ditfers from 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 177 

what may on a fair analysis be regarded as Plato's understanding of them. 
What is the explanation ? Theognis saw the possibility of a double entendre 
in Solon's lines, and, to bring out the vulgar sense, wrote a neat couplet 
of his own and tacked it on to Solon's lines to make a quatrain, slurring 
everything in the line but TraiSe? and <^lXoi in order to make his joke by 
means of a syntactical pun. Even in this passage in Theognis, T. Hudson 
Williams (in his commentary) insists that <^t Aot is at first naturally taken as 
an attribute, and that it is the second couplet which gives the syntax an 
unexpected twist. But I cannot agree with him that in Plato's quotation 
also ^cAot is to be taken as predicate. 

Heindorf 's note is as follows : " Videlicet ut exeat sententia, quam Solon 
ne somniavit quidem, versuum horum structuram, neglecto plane sermonis 
USU, hanc statuit : "OX/Slo^; w TratSe? re elal cfiiXoi kuI /x,(ovv;(es lttttol elal 
cfiiXoL etc. Cuiusmodi interpretationis aliud est luculentum exemplum in 
Alcibiad. ii 147 d, antiqui certi auctoris, licet non Platonis, libro." Ast 
(Platons Lehen und Schriften, Leipzig, 1816, p. 432) speaks of the "uner- 
traghche sophistische Verdrehung der so verstandlichen Solonischen Verse." 
Stallbaum says: " Recte vero Heindorf observavit praeter mentem ipsius 
poetae </)t Aot etiam ad lttttol et kwc? referri. . . . Talia ingeniosi vel pro- 
tervi lusus exempla in Platonis sermonibus multa inveniuntur, ut miremur 
Astium 1. c. p. 4.32 in ea re haesisse." 

The verses could hardly have been taken in the sense advocated by 
Steindorf without some protest from Menexenus or some indication of the 
perversity. Furthermore, this construction of the verses is not necessary for 
Socrates' argument, as has been shown. He is reminded of the line by his 
own words ^lXlttttol and (^lAoKwe? and quotes it as something universally 
believed. If a novel construction was to be put on the quotation in order 
to make a point in the argument, we should certainly have been given some 
warning. 

2. Kwes dypevrat : the commoner word (which is used by Theognis) is 
drjpevTat, which appears in Hom. //. xi 325 Kval OrjpevrfjaL, and xii 41 kv- 
vco-o-t KOL avSpda-L OrjpevTrjaL. ayp(.vTrj^ is not used by Homer or Aeschylus. 
Sophocles (Oed. Col. 1091) has tov aypevrav 'AttoAAw. In Anth. Pal. vii 
171 ay pevToX KoAa/xot means a hunter's trap of reeds. 

2. ^€vos dXAoSaTTos : oAXoSaTro? more commonly means a foreigner in a 
foreign land. Here it is a man who, though he is at home, is a foreigner 



178 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

from the point of view of the writer. Cf. Horn. II. iii 48 fjLLxOeU aXXoBa- 
TTOLai. (of Paris' sojourn among strangers in Sparta), and xix 324 (said by 
Achilles) 6 8' dWoSaTraJ ivl Srjfxu) \ eivcKa piye&xvr}? 'EAevT^s Tpioalv TroAe/xii^w. 

Ill- XI 

References: Bergk (1860, 1881) ; Croiset (1903) ; Crusius (1891) ; Fracca- 
roli (1893); Haupt (1859); Hiller (1883, 1886, 1888); Hude (1891); Jebb (1897); 
Keil (1892); Larsen (1900); Leutsch (1872); Ludwich (1903); Lugebil (1884); 
Murray (1889); Niemeyer (1891); Piccolommi (1892); Piatt (1896, 1898); 
Richards (1893) ; Sitzler (1879, 1894, 1897, 1900, 1907); Stadtmuller (1882) ; 
Wilamowitz (1893, 1902) ; Wilcken (1895); Class. Rev. (1891). 

Ill — V 

These three fragments are probably from the same poem, or at any rate 
from the same group of poems, in which Solon gave expression to his views 
concerning the causes of the desperate conditions in Athens, which he later 
tried to remedy during his archonship. Possibly vii belongs to this group, 
as well as xii and xviii. For the historical circumstances, see pages 40 ft". 
Crusius thinks that v is to be taken closely with iii : " intellego res Ath- 
eniensium dilabentes aspiciens omnium malorum quasi radices esse avaritiam 
et superbiam." This is unlikely because, according to Aristotle, Solon says 
that he fears these things. It is a mere guess without any real support, 

III 

There is a slight anacoluthon in these linos : the participle iaopiov is 
attached in sense to Kat fxoL ^pcvo^ evSoOtv dA.yca KelraL ; in construction to 
yiyvwa-Kii), which fixes the subject of the sentence as the first person. The 
turn which the sentence takes sets off yiyvduTKoi and gives it a certain 
solemnity as of a warning or a threat. 

1. dXyea keltixl : cf. Hom. //, xxiv b'1'1 oAA' aye 8ry kit ap' €^ev eVt 
Opovov, aXyea 8' ifX7rr)<i \ iv dvpa^ KaraKO-crOia earro/xci/ d;^i/uyaei/o( Trep. 

2. Thucydides (i 2 and 12) speaks of Atlicns as the mother-state of the 
lonians in Asia Minor and the Aegean islands. In Homer also (//, xiii 685) 
the Athenians are called 'Idoi/e?. Cf, Keil (1892, p. 39, footnote 1): "Die 
Worte dieser Eiegie . . . sind iibrigens eine recht erhclJiche Instanz 
gegen die Annahme, dass die Athener erst im 5. Jahrh. infolge des 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 179 

Bundesreiches die ioiiischc Dodekapolis als airoLKM Athens beanspnicht 
hatten. So alt wie die fx-qxpoiroXi^ lainn kciiie awoiKia sein ; sie ist die 
TrpecrySiTciTT;. " 

3. yalav . . . KXivojxivqv : a rather violent figure to express the decline 
of the fortunes of a state ; " urbs inelinari potest," says Blass, "non terra 
item." But he himself compares Aesch. Fers. 929 f., 'Ao-ta 8e ;(^o>v . . . 
€7rt yovv KeK^LTai. 

IV 

In these lines Solon has the quality of ficyaXofjipoa-vvr] in mind. The 
rich and successful persons in the state are men who form large plans and 
have the ability to carry them through (fxiyav voov), who are energetic and 
aggressive (Kaprepbv yrop). Such persons are admirable except when they 
exercise no restraint over their powers. 

1. ■^(Tvxd(TavT€<s : this verb, normally intransitive, is transitive in tliis 
tense alone, says Sandys, comparing Plato Bep. 572 a : ■^avxdaa'; fiev tw Svo 
elSr}, TO TpiTov h\ Kivr^cra?. 

2. Cf. Tyrtaeus xi 10 (Bergk) afX(^orip(jiv 8' €t? Kopov ^Aacrare ; Her. ii 
124 es Tracrav KaKorrjra eAao-a?. 

'^. iv fierpLOLaL TLOeaOe fxiyav voov : there seems to be no exact parallel 
to tliis. The general sense is clear, but it is by no means certain what 
should be done with TcOeo-Oe. (1) It may be used in its fundamental sense, 
'•put," "place," "put your mind in moderate affairs," i.e., "confine your 
mind, etc." The figure, however, seems rather violent. (2) It may have a 
suggestion of the idiom ttoAc/xov TiSea-Oai, the emphasis being upon fxiyav. 
Cf. Plat. Menex. 243 e rov re 7rpo5 rov^ iv 'EAevcrivt ttoAc/xov 0)5 /xcT/otw? 
iOevTo. "In temperate ways calm the tumult of your ambition." But 
neither of these parallels is decisive for the interpretation of the present 
passage. 

4. dpria : a favorite word with Solon ; found also in vii 4, xii 32, 39. It 
appears to have a meaning something like that of vyn^<; in its figurative 
senses. 

V 

If Plutarch (Sol. xiv 2) is thinking of the same poem from which Aris- 
totle is quoting, his words would imply that Solon had already been thinking 
of the office of dictator before composing the poem and that he was personally 



ISO SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

afraid of the rich. Aristotle seems to think he was afraid of the rich as per- 
sons dangerous to the public welfare. Aristotle uses the quotation as proof 
that Solon blamed the rich entirely for the civil disorder ; Plutarch thinks it 
is an indication of Solon's reluctance to accept the office. Aristotle takes 
both cf)t.XapyvpLav and vTrepr)<t>avLav as qualities of the rich ; Plutarch accuses 
the rich of <j>L\oxpr}iJMTLav and the poor of v7r€p7}<f>avLav. In this probably 
Aristotle is right, because Solon recognized the V7reprj<l>avtav of the lower 
classes only after his legislation had been adopted. On this fragment, see 
Wilamowitz (1893, I, 303, footnote 22). 

VI 

This fragment belongs to one of the group of apologetic poems composed 
after the archonship. For the circumstances see pages 91 ff. 

1 . ycpa? : properly a special privilege conferred upon a king or a noble : 
Hom. 0(L vii 1 50 yepa? $' 6 tl Syj/jlo^ cScukcv ; Thuc. i 1 3 irporepov 8* -^(Tav 
iirl pyjt6l<: yipaa-L Trarpt/cat /BaatXelaL. Solon speaks of the rights of the 
people as a ye'pas bestowed by the lawgiver, ri/otrj in the next line means 
practically the same thing. Both words are used collectively. 

2. eTTope^a/zevos : the active appears in Hom. //. v 225 et Trep av avre \ 
Ztvs iirl TvSdSr] AiofxySt'C kvSos op^irj', the middle commonly means "stretch 
out towards," "reach for." 

4. The infinitive with icfypaa-d/jirjv in the sense of " plan " or " contrive" 
is found also in Hom. II. ix 347 oAA', ' OSvcrev, avv aot re kol aWota-tv y8a(ri- 
XevaL I (ftpa^ia-Od) vT^eacnv aXe^efxevaL Srj'iov irvp. The commoner construc- 
tion is oTTOJs with the future indicative. 

5. Solon's figure is a little vague. He represents himself as offering to 
both parties the protection of the same shield. This could only be protection 
against outsiders. But what Solon evidently intends to express is that his 
laws are for the common service of both parties and make it impossible for 
either one to take an unfair advantage of the other. There is no thought of 
danger from the outside, but true harmony within the state is best displayed 
by presenting a united front to external aggression. 

VII 

These lines might have been written either before or after the archonship. 
But the fact that they are quoted by Aristotle in immediate connection with 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 181 

\i and viii, which unquestionably were composed after the archonship, 
makes it likely that they too belong to the later group. Besides, they seem 
to have been written at a time when Solon was no longer disposed to hold 
the rich responsible for all that was wrong. The passage is an indication 
of astonishing moderation in the popular reformer. Previously the leaders 
of the state had forced the people to do their will ; it would have been 
natural for the reformer to go to the other extreme and give the people un- 
due power, but Solon here points out the danger of putting unlimited power 
in irresponsible hands. 

2. That Solon felt the first of these two warnings to be rather more 
important than the other is shown by the trend of the next two lines. 

3 f. This idea, in the same or similar words, may have been proverbial 
even before Solon, as it surely was aftei'ward (see the passage in Clement 
referred to in the Testimonia). The scholiast on Pindar, in quoting the 
line, refers it to Homer. Diogenes Laertius (i 59) quotes, among tlie 
apophthegms attributed to Solon, the following : koI tov /xkv Kopov vtto tov 
ttXovtov yevvaaOaL, rrjv Sc v^piv vtto tov Kopov. 

4. dpTLo<i : see note on iv 4. ocots v6o<s dpTLo<i y ^ rot? dpTi<\>pocriv = 
TOtS a-(i)cf>po(TLv. 

VIII 

These trochaics and the two other trochaic fragments, xxi and xxii, may 
belong to the same poem. They are all in defense of Solon's refusal to deal 
with the political situation in a more high-handed and arbitrary manner. 

1. i<f}* dpTrayrj avvrjXdov: for €<^' dpTrayfj cf xii 13; Her. i 68 iirl 
KttKw ; iv 164 €771 SLa4>0oprj. The plural, e<^' d/jTrayat?, which is probably 
the reading of the papyrus, is not satisfactory. For (rvvrjXOov, cf. iwyyayov 
in ix 1 ; both verbs seem to refer to some united action on the part of the 
common people under the leadership of Solon. 

1. Bucherer says : " d<t>vedv, reiche HofFnung, d. h. Hoffnung auf Reich- 
tum." This is surely wrong. 

3. KWTtWovTa Xeto)? : cf. Theogn. 852 6<s tov kTa\pov | fxaXOaKo. kcdti'AAojv 
c^aTTttTar e^cXct. 

5. koiov 64>6aXp.ol<i 6pu)(n: cf. Anacreon 79 (Bergk) TrcoAe ®pr)KLr], tl hrj 
/xe Xoiov 6fXfxa(TLu ySAcTrovcra | VT/Xeois (f)€vyus, SoKCts Se fi ovSev clSevaL 
(TO^ov ; 



182 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 



IX 



For the subject of this poem see p. 11 4 f. It is possible that ix, x, and 
xi all belong to the same poem. 

In 1880 two sheets of papyrus were discovered, containing, on both sides 
of both sheets, what are now known to be four fragments of Aristotle's 
Constitution of A thens. These sheets are now in Berlin. One of the four 
pages contains the greater part of the present poem, as it was already known 
from the oration of Aristides. There was some uncertainty at first in 
identifying the four fragments, and it is not necessary now, since the dis- 
covery of the London papyrus, to recall the philological ingenuity which was 
displayed in the criticism of these slight forerunners. One observation made 
by Bergk, however, should not be overlooked. Writing in 1881, he ex- 
pressed the opinion that in so condensed a work as the Constitution of 
Athens Aristotle would not have given a whole page to a citation from 
Solon's poems, and that the citation must have been introduced by a later 
reader in support of Aristotle's statements. This opinion is not disproved 
by the fact that the same citation appears in the London papyrus, but it is 
rendered more improbable. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to infer 
that Aristotle set an extraordinarily high value on Solon's poems as histor- 
ical documents, since he was willing to include so many extracts from them 
in so brief a work. 

In the translation of the words of Aristotle which are introductory to 
ix, I have employed Professor Perrin's happy rendering of o-cLaaxOaay "dis- 
burdenment," for which I express obligation. 

1 f These two lines have been a battle ground of conjecture. The 
chief difficulty lies in the last word of vs. 1, where the reading of the pa- 
pyrus is not absolutely certain. Kenyon read a^ovrjXaTov ; Blass, i[v^vrjya- 
yov ; Wilcken (1895) says $vv^yayov is " unzvveifelhaft." Buchholtz-Pcpp- 
miiller adopt the reading of Wilamowitz-Kaibel's second edition of the Con- 
stitution of AthenSy though the latter editors did not retain it in their third 
edition : 

iyo) Se TOiv /jlcv eiveic a^ovrjXarcov 
Srj/jLov Tt TOVTCOP TTplv TV')(^6LP, eTravcrd/jirjv^ 
avfjLfiapTvpoLjj ktX. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 183 

The best defense of this is given by Wilamowitz (1893, II, 310) : " Wes- 
wegen ich, als ich den wagen des staates lenkte, aufgehort habe, ehe der 
demos etvvas hiervon bekam, das soil mir vor dem richterstuhle der ewigkeit 
die mutter Erde bezeugeu ; " to which is added in a footnote, " Der auf bau 
der gedanken wird durch die paraphrase deutUch ; aiov-qXaretv wird 
nicht bezweifeln, wer Kivrpov Xa^^v am schhisse dieser gedankenreihe 
20 beachtet." 

Since it is now generally admitted that d^'ovr/Aaroi/ is not the actual 
reading of the papyrus, it seems hardly reasonable to maintain unnecessarily 
in the text a reading like a^oi/i/Aarcov which manifestly is now no better 
than a conjectural emendation. The verb docs not, I believe, exist else- 
where. Furthermore, Jebb points out that the first two verses probably do 
not belong to the same sentence as avfji/jLapTvpotr), because Aristides begins 
his quotation with a-v/jL/jLapTvpotr]. 

Hiller-Crusius adopt a suggestion of Wessely which ingeniously combines 
the figure of the chariot with the sounder reading : 

iyo) Be Tcov fxev ovveic a^ov rj'ya'yov^ 
Brjfiop TL TOVTcov irpXv rv^elv iiravad/JLyv. 

It will be observed that the change from ovvcKa ^wryyayov to Wessely's 
reading involves a change of only one letter, the one given doubtfully by 
Blass as v. 

Crusius' translation is as follows : "Ego vero earum rerum quarum causa 
currum mihi vexerant priusquam aliquid plebs adepta esset, iugum retinui." 
This becomes properly intelligible only if we suppose, with Crusius, that the 
thought in the lines which immediately preceded vs. 1 of the present frag- 
ment ran as follows : " Etiam in aliis urbibus fuere qui plebem e miseria et 
servitute servarent, sed iidem rerum potiti optimates e terra eiecerunt atque, 
quo magis volgus novae rerum condicioni addictum esset, bona et praedia 
exulum sectatoribus distribuerunt." 

The difficulties in this reading are : (1) It is not clear what Wessely 
takes as subject of yjyayov. That it is to be regarded as a third person 
plural is clear from Crusius' translation vexerant. But who are these persons, 
the plebs or the optimates ? Furthermore, what does the phrase really mean ? 
So far as I know, it is unparalleled. (2) It is very uncertain what is to be 
proved by the testimony of Mother Earth. Crusius says: ''a-v/xpxipTvpotr] 



184 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

kt\. cum versibus 1. 2 iion tam apte coniuncta esse, sed ad uiiiversum 
poematii exordium spectare crediderim." This is an entirely safe opinion 
since we know nothing of the exordium of the poem ; but it does not seem 
likely that Aristotle would have made so mutilated a quotation as such a 
supposition would involve. 

Blass prints the two lines as follows : 

ijo) Be TO)v fxev ovveKa ^[y'^vq^a'yov 
Br)/jLov, tl; tovtcov irplv rv^elv iTravad/jirjv ; 

This form of question, implying the answer " No," fits the context admir- 
ably ; and the testimony of the earth is very naturally invoked to prove that 
Solon had not stopped with his w^ork undone. But I cannot venture to ac- 
cept the rhetorical tl, wiiich though Blass supports it by Dem. xx 160, seems 
to me to have little probability. 

The reading that I have adopted is the same as that given by Sandys in 
his edition of the Constitution of Athens. The question propounded in the 
two lines is supposed to have been asked by some critical opponent of Solon's 
policy ; Solon states the question in half indirect form ; then, instead of 
answering directly, he invites the attention of his critic to the real accom- 
plishments of his administration. " You ask me why I did not finish my 
task. I cannot tell you why I did not finish, because I maintain that I 
did." Sitzler recognizes this as the most probable reading and interpretation 
of the passage. 

Many emendations have been proposed, in almost every syllable of the 
two lines, most of which may be found in Sitzler (1894). 

1. €ya> Se: it is of course impossible to say what the antitheton to eyto 
was. When a man is surrounded by opponents as Solon was, there were 
many opportunities for antithesis. Crusius supposes that the contrast was 
between Solon and the popular reformers in other states, which is merely an 
unsupported guess. 

1. Ta)v fxkv ovvcKa ^vvyyayov Brjfxov : tliis first element of an antithesis 
is resumed in VSS. 15-17, ravra fxkv . . . l/oc^a kol SLrjXOov ws VTreaxofxrjv 
and the contrast appears in vs. 18, dea-fjiov^ 8' 6fxoL(D<i kt\. The arbitrary 
measures for popular relief w^ere extra-legal and preceded the establishment 
of the Solonian constitution. 

1 f. ^fVT/yayoi/ 8^/xov : Sandys offers two interpretations for this phrase : 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 185 

" I formed the popular party, or (less probably) gathered the people into 
one (by healing the divisions which separated the various orders in the state)." 
Undoubtedly the former is right. Cf. crvvrjXOov in viii 1. Piatt quotes 
aptly Aristotle Pol. iii, 1 285 b : 8ta yap to tov^ 7rpu)Tov<; yev^aOat tov ttXtj- 
Bov<i cvepyera? Kara Ti')(ya<i rj ttoAc/xov, 17 8ta to crvvayayeLV rj TroptcraL )((jt)pav, 
iytvovTO ^ao-tXei? €k6vt(i)v koL toi? TrapaXafx/SavovaL Trarpiot (referring to the 
monarchy in the heroic age). 

2. The question in this line is supposed to be repeated by Solon after 
one of his critical opponents who was dissatisfied with his policy, rt, 
"why," is to be construed with iTravadfxrjv and tovVwv with ruxctv. Bu- 
cherer's interpretation is manifestly impossible : " Bevor ich welches von 
den Zielen, derentwegen ich das Volk um mich scharte, erreicht hatte, horte 
ichauf?" 

3. avfjiixapTvpoL-q: "in addition to my own arguments in justification of 
myself, I appeal also to the corroborative testimony of the earth " — the 
italicized words show the force of o-v/x-. Xenophon may have had this 
passage in mind when he wrote Hell, iii 3, 2 a-vvefxapTvprja-e Sk tuvt avroJ 
Kttt 6 aX7]6i<JTaToq Acyd/xevos xpovo^ etvai (quoted by Sandys). 

3. TavTa : the truth about the matters raised by your question. 

3. iv Slkyj )(p6vov : several attempts have been made to amend this 
phrase, but there is no need of altering it. The figure is not impossible for 
Solon, The virtue of Solon's policy will not be appreciated until some time 
has elapsed to watch its operation ; therefore time sits in judgment and ren- 
ders a just verdict. The " bar of history " is a slightly different conception. 
Peppmiiller compares Pindar frag. 159 (Bergk) dvSptuv SiKatwv xp'^yo<; a-wTrjp 
apL(TTo<;, and Soph. Oed. Tyr. 614 ;(pdvos StVaiov avSpa Stt^Kvucriv fx6vo<i. To 
which Jebb (on Oed. Tyr. loc. cit.) adds Pindar 01. x 53 d r' liiKky^inv 
fx6vo<i aXdOeiav iTrjTvpiov xp^vo^- ^f- ^1^0 the passage from Xenophon just 
quoted. 

4. The genitive Sat/xdi/cov is taken more naturally with p-rJTTjp than with 
/xeyto-Tiy. Schneidewin reads Kpdvov for xpovov in vs. 3 and punctuates as 
follows : Kpdvov fjn^T-qp, fxeytcTTr) 8at/xdva)v 'OXvfXTrtoyv, dpLCTTa, Vrj /xcAatva. 
But xpovov is not to be rejected, and without Kpdi/ov, the comma after p-rJT-qp 
is certainly impossible. 

4 ff". Here, as elsewhere, Ge is not thought of as the personality of the 
whole round earth, but is the earth as conceived by a resident of Attica. 



18G SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

The stone tablets set in the soil of Attica had enslaved Earth herself. A 
very interesting expression of tlie same sentiment is found in Plato Laws 
740 a (quoted by Sandys) : Set tov Xa-^ovra rrjv Xtj^lv ravrrjv vofX'Xeiv fxev 
KOLvr]V avTTjV Trj<i TToAeojs ^v/x7racr7;s, TrarptSos Sc ojar]<; Trj<; ^wpa<; OepaTrevuv 
avT^jv Set /xet^dvtos y {xyrepa Tra.Oas, rco /cat SecTTrotvav Oeov avrrjv ovaav 
OvrjrZv ovTwv yeyovevai. 

4. The i)lirase /J-rjTrjp /xey^aTrj SaL/xoywv ^OXvfXTrLwv is a curious one for 
several reasons : the use of the superlative fxeytuT-q with p^yrrjp is somewhat 
illogical, though exactly parallel to the epistolary " My dearest mother " ; Ge 
u not oi'ivn spoken of as the mother of tlie gods ; she is never, so far as I 
know, called the mother of the Olympians. 

In He.siod's theoretical cosmogony (Theog. 116 ff.), she is represented as 
the mother, not only of the gods, but of all things living ; and in the follow- 
ing passages also, she appears as the mother of the gods : Horn. Hymn xxx 
(ets r.^j/ fxrjTcpa TravTUiv) 1 f. Ta'ai/ TTJLfXfxrjTUpnv det'cro/xat yvOlfxcOXov | irpccr- 
fiia-Trjv, T] cfyepfSet i . t )(Oovl irduO bnoa iarcv ; 1 7 ;( ape, BeCov fxrjTrjp, a\n^' 
Ovpavov arrepozi/Tos. Eur. frag. Chrysipp. 836 Fata /ley larrj ku Ato? PdOiqp, 
6 fxkv av^pJiTTiiiv Kat ^ea>v yzvlroip, rj ovypo^oXov^ urayov ii votui^ irapaht^a.- 
fiivrf TiKTCL 0v^TOV3, TLKTCi Sc ftopoLV cfivXd T€ drfpijiv 69 v ovK dStKux; p.rjTrip 
TTonfToyv vevofxiaTUL. " Die Gottermutter ist far Solon die Erde, dem alten 
Glauben und Kulte gemass ; die Gleichsetzung dieser hellenischen fJiijT-qp 
Oeoju mit der phrygischcn Kybele, der magna mater, hat er noch nicht 
geknnnt. Die Person ist ihm aber von ihrem Elemente noch durchaus nicht 
getrennt : wenn ct aus der fJ-r'/Trjp fxeyio-Tr) Hypothekensteine zieht, ist das 
keine kiinstUclie Redefigur, wie bei romischen Dichtern, sondern die Erde, in 
der die Steine stecken, ist wirklich der Leib der Gottin, die ja die Seele 
dieser Erde ist " (Wilamowitz). 

6 f. Plutarch (Sol. xv 5) introduces his quotati(m of these two lines 
with these words : (Te/xyvvcTaL yap 2oA.coi/ iv TovTOL<i art Trj<; re TrpovTroKei/xevrjq 
y"}? opou9 dj/e"A.e ktX., "for Solon boasts, in his poems, of having removed 
the stone tablets from the laml which had previously been mortgaged." 

6. For opovs, see pp. 62 f. 

8. The change from the conception of Mother Earth in vss. 4-7 to that 
of the fatherland in the present verse is no less striking than the same change 
in the Platonic passage quoted on vs. 4 above. 

8. Cf. Soph. Electr. 707 *A6r}vu)v twv ^coS/xtJtwv. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 187 

9. Cf. xii 23 ff. 

9. cKStKoos and StKatws are here used with reminiscence of the primitive 
meaning of Slkt], the custom of the community. They mean, therefore, 
"legally" and "illegally," not "deservedly" and "undeservedly." Solon 
does not express an opinion through these words concerning the absolute 
justice or injustice of selling men into slavery for debt. 

10 f. Cf. Horn. IL viii 56 f. fxe/xaaav Sk kol ws vafxlvi [xa)(€.adaL, | )(^p€Lo2 
avayKatrj, irpo re TraiBiov kol 7rp6 ywaiKojv. " Inde lonisinms," says Blass. 

11 if. Plutarch introduces his quotation of vss. 11-14 as follows : kol 
Ttov dyioycixoiv Trpos apyvpLov yeyovoTcov TroAtrcov tov<; /xkv dv^yayev (xtto ^eVrys 
ktA., " of the citizens who had been enslaved for debt, some he brought back 
from abroad, etc." 

12. ws av TToXXaxfj 7rAava)/u,ej/ovs : "a thing which might well happen in 
the case of persons w^ho had traveled much;" cf. Lucian Charon 1, 488 
Seti^ets CKaora o)? av et8aj9 aTravra, and Plut. Cat. Mai. 4 Trptaa-OaL . . . 
<i)S av Seoficvo^. 

14. Ty^r; SecnroTCyv TpofX£vixivov<; : these words describe a condition which 
would appear especially deplorable to the mind of Solon whose guiding prin- 
ciple was that human rights and human liberty should be safeguarded by 
just and impartial laws. 

15. ravTa jxiv resumes the antithesis instituted in vs. 1 twv fxlv ovvtKa 
^vvriyayov, which is complete in vs. 18 with 6ta-ixov<i 8e. See note on vs. 1. 

16. ^L-qv re koX Slkyjv : (Sirjv repeats the idea of KpareL, and the line is an 
apology of the lawgiver for resorting to force at all ; ordinarily a tiling done 
^io. is not done St'/cr;, but Solon had united the two antagonistic principles, 
and since he acted in accordance with justice, he could not be blamed if he 
used force at the same time. 

17. The same assertion is made in viii 6. 

17. SltjXOov : " I finished my course." Bergksaid that SlyjXOov cslr only 
be a synonym of ipe^a and that this is a meaning foreign to the word ; he 
therefore read Sirjvva. But SlyjXOov need not be a synonym of cpe^a. In the 
sentence ravra fxev Kparet . . . epe^a, Kparei contains the important idea ; 
the method of his achievement, rather than the achievement itself, is em- 
phasized. But epeia, standing at the beginning of its line, wins a secondary 
emphasis for the idea of thoroughness in achievement, which is then made 
more explicit by the words BLrjXOov ws viredyofx-qv. ipeia and SlyjXOov are not 



188 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

a pair of synonyms, tpe^a is transitive, SirjXOov intransitive ; and there is a 
slight pause after tpe^a. 

18. Oea-fjiov^ : Andocides {de myst. 81) calls the laws of Draco ^ecr/xovs 
and those of Solon voixov^ (xPW^"^^ '^^^'^ 2dAcoi/os vo/tots kol ApaKovro? 
Oeafxols:). In Aristotle Const, of Athens iv 1 we find ApaKwi/ roi;? ^ecr/xov? 
iOrjKev ; and Aelian ( V. H. viii 10) says the laws of Draco were called OeaiJioi 
But Solon uses the word Oeaixov<; of his ow^n law^s, not only here, but even in 
one of the laws attributed to him (Plut. Sol. xix 3 ore Oe(jfx6<; i<f>dvr) oSe). 
In the common Greek usage, Oea-fxoL were ancient laws which were supposed 
to be sanctioned by the gods. 

18. TO) /cttKO) Tc KayaO(^ : manifestly the difference between the two 
classes is social and political, not moral. Such language is natural in the 
mouth of a Tory like Theognis, but sounds strange when coming from an 
impartial lawgiver like Solon. But the use is common enough in Greek, and 
it is sufficient to quote Horn. Od. iv 64 dXX' dvS/ocov yeVo? iare 8torpe<^eW 
jiafTiXrjoiv I aK-q'jrTov')((biv, CTret ov k€ KaKol TOLovaSe rcKOtev ; and Soph. Oed. 
Tyr. 1063 av fxkv yap ovS' iav TpiTr]<; eyw | ixTjTp6<; ^av(o Tpt8ouA.09 cK^avct 
Ktt/cr; ; 1397 vvv yap KaK6<i t oiv kolk KaKcov cvpiCTKopuai. 

19. evOelav eis iKacrrov a.pfx6<Ta<i Slktjv : there is something Sophoclean in 
the intricate suggestiveness of this line, which uses old phrases in new ways. 
The key to the correct interpretation is to be found in the political change 
from unconstitutional oligarchy to constitutional democracy. In Hesiod 
(IF. and D. 225, 226) we find the operation of the former type of govern- 
ment : or 8€ SiKttS ietvoLo-i Kal ivSrj/xoLaL 8i8ot'(rtv | Weta^ Kal fxrj tl TrapeKfiai- 
vov(TL Slkollov, | TOL(rL TeOr]\€ ttoXls, Xaol 8' avOevaLv iv avrfj. 

In such a polity as this, all disputes are brought before the /Jao-tActs who 
judge them on their merits (8tKa5 lOeias — or o-KoXta? — SlSovo-lv). Now 
when Solon came to write this present line, he was confronted by a new po- 
litical condition : disputes were now to be settled, not by the personal decision 
of a magistrate, but in accordance with the written law. He had to write, 
therefore, not evOeLaq SUas, but tvOctav Slktjv, not "just decisions," but "im- 
partial justice." Solon, being a legislator and not a judge, substitutes the 
abstract singular Slktjv for the concrete plural 8i'Ka9. Very good ; but what 
verb can he use with cvOelav hUiqv in this new sense ? The /JaaiActs gave 
decisions : what did Solon do ? He created a flexible instrument which 
could be trusted to provide just decisions on all occasions for all kinds of 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 189 

people. So with a flash of literary skill, he uses the word dp/xdo-tts to indi- 
cate the adaptability of the new constitution to its multifarious purposes. In 
the end he has produced a line of real distinction, which is none the worse for 
the touch of paradox given by the rather sinister phrase dpix6aa<; SU-qv, which, 
if the reader happens to think of it, will sound like manipulating justice. 
The translation given by L. and S. (s.v. d/o/xd^w) is certainly wrong: "dp/x. 
BiKrjv eU TLva to bring judgment upon him." The passage in Hesiod quoted 
above disproves it, as do also the following : xii 36 evOvvet Sc/cas aKoXids ; 
Pindar F. iv 153 (Christ) evOwe Aaois Si'/cas ; Aesch. Uu77i. 433 Kp2ve 8' 
evOeTav Slktjv ; and the word evOvSLKca. Wilamowitz is also surely wrong when 
he saj^s (1902) that evOelav Slktjv dp^Lidora? is a figure from the plumb line. 

20. Solon had the same power over the people that a driver with a goad 
in his hand has over his animals ; but it was his duty to use the curb quite 
as much as to ply the lash. 

20. KivTpov : cf. Soph. frag. 683 (Pearson) Xa^wv \ -n-avovpya. xepcrti' 
K€VTpa KTjScveL ttoXlv. 

21. KaKocfipaBrj<: : "wrong-minded"; if intentionally, "malignant," 
"unscrupulous"; if unintentionally, "ill-advised," "foolish." Here, as in 
the one Homeric passage where the word appears (11. xxiii 483), it has the 
former meaning. 

22 ff. In Aristides' quotation of this fragment, there is a break after 
the words ovk av Kario-^e SrjiJiov. But after the brief remark, elra tC cft-qcnv 6 
SoAo)!/, he gives the rest of the quotation, ei yap rjOeXov ktX. Bergk prints 
this latter part ei yap rjOeXov . . . iaTpdcfirjv Xvko<; as a separate fragment, 
and attaches to tlie longer fragment in Aristides the two lines which are 
found in Plut. Sol. xvi 2 ( = xi 1 f.) The arrangement of the verses in 
Aristotle makes it certain that Bergk was wrong, and we may be fairly sure 
that the succession as given in Aristotle is correct. Piatt, however, insists 
on a lacuna between ovk av Kareax^ Syj/xov and el yap rjOeXov. But this is 
unnecessary. Solon says : " I drew up impartial laws. Any other man, 
holding such power as I held, would have favored the S^/xos, and would have 
failed to exercise any check upon their passions, which would have gone to 
great lengths. For partiality to either side, in his case as in mine, would 
have cost the city many lives." yap means: "I know what would have 
happened in his case, because I know what would have happened if I had 
acted in a similar fashion." 



190 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

22 ff. The interpretation of these verses has given rise to considerable 
discussion and to several attempts at emendation. The real difficulty lies 
in the two questions : who were to2<s ivavTioLaiv ? and when was totc ? ot 
ivavTLoi I take to be the aristocrats who opposed Solon's policies, rore was the 
period during which Solon's reformatory measures were introduced and his 
constitution adopted. V. 23 is in the nature of an afterthought, and refers 
to the opposition which Solon met throughout his career from both parties : 
Toio-tv are the aristocrats ; ovrepoL, the popular party. "If I had consented 
to the course which my opponents favored at that time, or if tliereafter I had 
consented to the treatment which their opponents were always planning for 
them, etc." This is also Bucherer's view, who says : " Und dann wieder, 
was die anderen (ovrepoi = oi erepoi), die extreme Volkspartei, gegen diese, 
die Regierenden, jedesmal ins Werk setzen w^ollten." For the use of rjOeXov 
with an accusative, which Piatt says is impossible, cf. Thuc. v 50, 2 <Ls Sk 
ovSk Tavra rjOeXov, where the accusative as in Solon is a neuter plural. The 
optative (jipaaataTo, making a conditional relative clause of the past general 
type, is highly appropriate : the pressure from the aristocratic party came at 
only one time, but wdien Solon was once established as the champion of the 
popular party, he must have been called upon frequently to say "no " to the 
vindictive demands of his constituents. 

25. Cf, Herodotus vi 83 "Apyo? drSpcoi/ i-^rjpwOr]. 

26. AXkyjv TrdvroOcv Troteu/xcvo? : " putting forth my strength to defend 
myself against attacks from all quarters." Such periphrases with the middle 
TTOLela-Oat are very common. Cf. Soph. Oed. Col. 459 eav yap v/xetsr, tS leVot, 
OeXrjO ofxov | 7rpoaT(XTL(n rat? cre^vatcrt 8r;^ov^ot? ^eats | olXkjjv Troiua-Oai (to 
succor the stranger). Peppmiiller's interpretation is different : " Um dro- 
henden imieren Krieges willen nahm Solon die Hilfe, wo sie sich ihm zu 
zeigen schien." But olXky^v iroidaOat surely cannot mean "seek aid" ; and, 
furthermore, the comparison in the last line shows that Solon could not 
rely for aid upon anyone but himself. 

26. Cf. vi i) ta-TrjV 8' d/jicfyLlSaXiov Kparepov (rdKO<; dfxc^oTepoLaiv. 

27. iv Kvalv . . . iarpdcfyrjv: cf. Hom. //. xii 43 tj/ t£ Kvvcaa-t . . . 
KaTTpto? y/k Xioiv crr/je'c^erat. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 191 



See the introductory note on ix. 

1. 8>;/xa): given an emphatic position as the true subject of etSov in con- 
trast to oo-ot yaet^ous kol jSiav d/xetVoves, but attracted into the dative with 
ovsiSi'rrai and so made grammatically a part of the rhetorical parenthesis. 

1. SiaffxiBrjv: this word is found also in Pollux ii 129, and, in the form 
8ta<^a8av. in Alcman v 56 (Hiller-Crusius). 

2 f. Evidently an allusion to the clairvoyant power of the mind in 
sleep. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 104 f. (.v^ovcra yap <f>pr]v ofXfJuiaLv XafXTrpvveraL, | 
iv rjP'^p'i Se fjiolp' air p6a-KOTro<i (Spordv. On this passage in Aeschylus, the 
scholiast says : iv tS KaOevSeLv 6 vovs aKpifSicrTCpov opa, pi] TrapaTrAavoo/xcvos 
T^7 6ea. Pindar (frag. 131) expresses a similar thought: euSet 8e irpaaa-ov- 
Twv p-cXioiv' arap evSovTCo-an^ iv ttoXXols 6vupoi<s Sukvvctl repTruiov i<f>ipTroL<Tav 
XaAeTToji/ T£ Kpi(Tiv ; and Cicero (de div. i 30, 63) : " cum ergo est somno 
s?v()catus animus a societate et a contagione corporis, tuni meminit praeteri- 
torum, praesentia cernit, futura providet ; iacet enim corpus dormientis ut 
mortui, viget autem et vivit animus." In Dem. F. L. 275 (quoted by 
Sandys) a /xr;8' ovap rjXTnadv TrcoTrore, the word for " dream " appears, but in 
Solon nothing is said about dreams. 

3 f. Two explanations are offered for the incomplete line. Crusius, 
evidently thinking that the second half of the line has been lost in trans- 
mission, proposes to restore it by writing iv ttJAt/o-' oveLpaToiv, a phrase which 
is paralleled in Hom. Od. iv 809 and Babrius fab. 30, 8. Kenyon thinks 
that Aristotle broke off his quotation with ei;8oi/res elSov, and that vs. 4 did 
not follow immediately after vs. 3 in Solon's poem. Now, though the phrase 
proposed by Crusius is quite possible, it seems equally strange that Aristotle 
should have failed to quote these words if they were in the original poem, 
and that a scribe should have lost them in copying. On the other hand, 
Kenyon's proposal is both plausible in itself and at the same time relieves 
the awkwardness of the optative aivo2ev av succeeding the indicative et8ov av. 
If the verbs follow one another closely as they are given in the quotation, 
then it seems impossible not to take alvolev av as parallel to elBov av, the 
two things which would have happened if Solon had not been strictly im- 
partial. This use of the potential optative is not uncommon in Homer, but 
Monro {Horn. Gram. p. 273) says it is confined to Homer. It would not 



192 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

be impossible, I think, in Solon, and the sequence of elSov av . . . mvotcv 
dv is not absolutely intolerable. But the whole difficuity disappears if we 
accept Kenyon's suggestion, which he made on quite other grounds. Fur- 
thermore, the two potentials, as a matter of fact, do not depend upon the 
same condition. The implied condition for etSov dv is " if I had not supported 
the popular cause as I did." If this condition were also assumed for aivouv 
dv, then the rebuke would be directed only against the complaints of the 
popular party ; whereas the words with whicli Aristotle introduces the quo- 
tation indicate that the rebuke is intended for both parties. "We must 
suppose, then, that the condition for alvotev dv is "if the nobles were to 
learn the real moderation in my plans for reform." 

XI 

See the introductory note on ix. 

1. This fragment begins with the same words that are used in ix 22 — 
ovK av Kareax^ Srjfiov. Before the discovery of the London papyrus, Bergk 
printed xi 1. 2 after ix 21 and regarded ix 22 (el yap -ijOeXov) to 27 as a 
separate fragment. Even now, with the text of Aristotle in hand, some 
scholars have attempted to fit the fragments together in some order different 
from that in which they are given by Aristotle. But it seems hardly likely 
that Aristotle or anyone else would have torn the poem apart in order to 
quote in so extraordinary a fashion. It is more likely that similar ideas and 
similar expressions recurred in the whole series of poems which Solon com- 
posed at this period in his career. Whether all three of these iambic quota- 
tions come from the same poem or not, it is impossible to say, but it is 
highly probable that they do, 

2. Of the textual variations in this line, only one has any serious effect 
upon the interpretation. Plutarch gives irlap, the i)apyrus nvap. Both are 
Greek words: ttiu/o means "fat" (substantive or adjective); irvap means 
"beestings," the milk given by a cow immediately after calving. The read- 
ing TTvap is defended by Piatt, who maintains that -rrvap was regarded as a 
dainty in Athens, as well as in modern England ; that a thick crust rises 
on it when it is stirred (this he has on the authority of a farmer's wife) ; 
and that the metaphor refers to the division of the people into factions, as 
TTvap is divided by shaking. Tliis is ingenious, but fantastic. Even sup- 
j)(>sing the statements about Trvap are true, how doesc^ctXev yaXa harmonize 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 193 

with this interpretation 1 If we read Trtap, several constructions are pos- 
sible : (1) yoAa may be the object of dvrapa^a?, and Trtap the object of i^exXev ; 
(2) yaA.a may be the object of the composite verb Trtap e^e^Acv (a suggestion 
of Sandys) ; (3) Trtap and yaAa may both be objects of e^etAei/ on the prin- 
ciple of the double accusative with- verbs meaning "deprive." In all of 
these it is assumed that Trtap is a substantive. Another possibility is (4) to 
take Trtap as an adjective with yaAa, and yaAa as the object of e^eiAev. There 
is nothing decisive to be said in favor of any one of these. Trtap is regularly, 
if not invariably, a substantive ; it seems to me impossible to take yaAa 
with dvTapa^as, not because it is too far removed, but because the order 
favors the combination dvrapd^a? Trtap and e^ctAev yctAa ; a composite verb 
like Trtap c^etAcv requires very definite support. On the basis of these obser- 
vations, I prefer the third possibility. 

There is a further difficulty in the passage. The only kind of fat which 
is obtained from milk by shaking is butter, and butter was practically un- 
known in classical Greece. We do hear something, however, of a butter made 
from mare's milk among the Scythians. Herodotus (iv 2) describes how 
this butter was made by shaking the milk in a wooden vessel; and Hippoc- 
rates (de morhis i 508 Foes.) in speaking of the same process uses the m ord 
(3ovTvpov, which we may gather was of Scythian origin : Kat ro /xkv ttlov, o 
fiovTvpov KaAeoucrt, eTrtTroA^s Stto-rarat iXacfipov iov. We must conclude that 
Solon became acquainted with this Scythian practice in the course of his 
travels, and referred to it in a rather obscure metaphor ; or that butter- 
making, though not mentioned in literature, was not unknown to Attic 
peasants. See Hehn, Kulturpjlanzen und Hausthiere, ed. 7, p. 154, 
1902. 

2. For the moods in vss. 1 and 2, cf. Plato Meno 86 d : ovk av iaKe- 
i(/dix€.6a irpoTcpov €lt€ StSaKTov etre ov StSaKTov yj apery], irplv 6 tl ecrrt 7rpu)Tov 
i^rjTrjaaixev avTO (Sandys). 

3 f. The figure is similar to those in vi 5 and xi 26. 

3 f. TovTiov : evidently the opposing factions. There is something 
a little inharmonious in the combination peraL-^fxio) . . . 6po^. to p.eTai)(^ixiov 
is the space between two opposing armies ; opo'^ is the boundary, or the 
stone marking the boundary, between adjoining countries or estates. The 
word 6po^ probably came to Solon's mind for two reasons : (1) because he 
had much to do with opot (in another sense) during the course of his legisla- 



194 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

tion (cf. ix 6) ; and (2) because there is no word which would properly carry 
out the figure begun in fxerai^ixM ; indeed there was no such thing as a 
barrier set up between two armies to prevent them from joining conflict : 
and yet this was just the function that Solon claimed to perform. Aris- 
tides paraphrases the passage in the following words (xlvi 278) : hrrrj 8' [_i.e. 
SoAcov]] iv /JieOopiio Travnov dvOpeiorara Koi StKaiOTara, uicnrep rtva; d)? a\r]- 
Oojs tK yeoo/xerpta? 7repiypaTrTov<; <f>v\dTT(DV opovs- Here Solon is compared 
to a man who is guarding a surveyor's stones or stakes by which the boun- 
daries of an estate are indicated. 

XII 

References: Bergk (1881) ; Croiset (1880, 1903) ; Dials (1888) ; Gotthng 
(1850) ; Hecker (1850) ; Hiller (1888) ; Keene (1885); Leutsch (1872) ; Meyer 
(1893) ; Sitzler (1879, 1894) ; Wilamowitz (1893) 

This poem is not given in S and L, the two best manuscripts of Demos- 
thenes ; in A there are only a few verses. In the other manuscripts the 
39 verses are given without any indication of a lacuna. It will be observed 
that at vs. 10 there are three pentameters in succession, and that at vs. 25 
there are two hexameters. To mend the latter passage Gottling introduced 
into the text a pentameter from Planudes (Iriarte, Cod. Matrit, p. 113) as 
follows : iraLKaKa 8ovXo(Tvvrj<: ^ijya cfjlpovai (iU. Some have tried to make 
this verse tolerable by emendation ; most reject it as a Byzantine product. 
At vs. 10 attempts liave been made to restore the passage by importing 
hexameter lines from other fragments of Solon ; and Bergk, observing that 
tlie words' a^LKoicr cpy/xacrt TruOojxevoL are also found in xl 12, reconstructed 
the passage as follows, leaving a lacuna of only half a line : 

ev(f)poavva<^ Koaiielv 8aLTb<=; iv rjO'V'^Lr). 
TrXovTOvatv 8' dSifcco^; . . . 

ovd^ lepcov fcredvcov ovre ri hrj fjioa loov 
(f)€L86/jL€V0L, KXeiTTOvai S' 6^' dpiTa'yr) dWoOev dWo'^. 

But these attempts at restoration, however ingenious, are not convincing, 
and we have a better chance of reading Solon's own words if we leave the 
text as it is and merely indicate the lacunae. 

Wilamowitz asserts that only the first sixteen lines were read by Demos- 
thenes' direction before tiie Athenian audience, and that the remainder of 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 195 

the poem was added by an early editor of Demosthenes' speeches. This is, 
of course, possible, but uncertain ; and for Solon at any rate unimportant. 

Are we to suppose that the verse rjfx€T€prj Be ttoAis is the actual be- 
ginning of the poem as it was composed by Solon ? There is no decisive 
evidence on this point. Voemel points out that the particle 8e is no 
obstacle to regarding this as the beginning (cf Xen. Anah. v 5, 13) ; in- 
deed he thinks it highly likely that we have the opening of the poem: 
" Imo optime convenit commoto atque elato Solonis animo relicta sententia 
' Aliae quidem urbes interierunt et interibunt,' sic incipere : 'sed Athenae 
sunt perpetuae.' " This is not impossible ; and if it is true, as Wilamowitz 
supposes, that the end of the poem was added by an editor, it is not prob- 
able that the same editor would have left his quotation incomplete at the 
beginning, unless the poem was very long. 

See the discussion of this poem on pages 105 ff. 

1 ft'. The theological views revealed in these lines are noteworthy. The 
fortunes of the state depend upon both gods and men. The favor of the 
gods can be assured if the state has a powerful champion among them. But 
even though the gods show no hostility, ruin may come through the per- 
versity of men. The whole passage is imbued with the Homeric feeling 
about the government of the world, which recognizes the human and the 
divine as partners in the administration. In this partnership men indeed 
do not possess equal power, but they have a responsibility similar to that of 
the gods. Meanwhile men and gods alike are under the sway of a dark and 
unscrutable fate which even the Greeks could not transform through per- 
sonification into either god or man. Cf. Hom. Od. i 32 : 

*I1 iroTTOL^ olov hrj vv Oeoi/^ /Sporol alnocovrat . 
i^ rj/xecov ydp <j>aai kclk e/Jifievai' ol he kol avrol 
a^rjaiv aTacrOaXirjcnv virepfiopov aX'ye €')(^ovaiv. 

1. Kara Aio? atcrav : cf. Hom. II. ix 608 cfipoveo) 8e TCTLfjurjaOaL Ato? aia-rj ; 
Od. ix 52 t6t€ St^ pa KaKTj Atos atcra TrapeVrry | rffjuv alvofxopoLaiv, Iv aXyea 
TToWa iraBoifxcv. The phrases Kar daav, Trap' atcrav, and virkp cuaav are 
frequent in Homer, but the combination Kara Ato? ato-ai/ is not found 
there. 

2. fxaKapcDv OeQyv dOavaTOiv : cf. Horn. II. iv 127 Oeol /aaKa/oe? aOdvaTOt ; 
Hes. Theog. 881 /xaKape? ^eot ; Theogn. 759 aWot aOdvaroi fxoLKape^ Oeoi 



196 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

3. Of. Horn. II. V 828 tolt] tol iyiov iTTLTappoOo^ ei/xi (said by Athena 
to Diomed). 

3. cTTto-KOTTos i the regulai word for a tutelary divinity. In Horn, //. 
xxiv 729 Hector is called the protector of Troy — rj yap oAwAa? iTrcaKOTros, 

OS T€ fJiLV aVTYJV | pVCTKCV. 

3. ofipiixoTroLTpr] : u frequent epithet of Athena in Homer, where, as 
here, it always closes the verse. 

4. This figure of the hands raised in protection is found several times in 
Homer, e.g., It. ix 420 fxaXa yap iOev evpvoTra Zei^s j x^^P^ ^W ^'n-f.picryf., 
Tedap(TrjKa(TL Se Aaot. In Eur. I})h. Aul. 916 Clytemnestra uses the same 
phrase in her supplication to Achilles, the "son of a goddess " — •^v 8e toA- 
/x-qaeLs crv fiov \ x^^p' vTrepretvat, <j€croj(r/x€^a. Aristophanes probably had 
Solon's words in mind when he wrote the following passage in the Knights 
(1173 ff.): 

AA. (S Ar]fjL\ ivapfycd^ t) ^ed? a' iiriaKoirel, 
KoX vvv virep€')(^ei crov '^vrpav ^w/jiov irXeav. 

Atj/jl. OL€t yap oiKelaO' av en Tqvhe r-qv itoXlv^ 
el /JLT) (j)avep(o<; rj/jLcoi/ viTepel')(^e rrjv ')(yTpav. 

Xvrpav t,o)pov TrAeav is, of course, put Trapo, TrpocrSoKtav for X^^P^- 

5. avToi: this word, standing at the beginning of its sentence, con- 
trasted with Zeus and the other gods, carrying no meaning of its own but 
simply intensifying the subject, which we discover only in the next line, 
presents a contrast between things of visible and concrete reality and divine 
beings whose existence we know only through faith. It is a contrast similar 
to that between the real body and the invisible soul in Hom. II. i 2 f 

5. a<j>paUr)(Tiv : this word is commonly used by Homer in the i)lural to 
mean " rash and imprudent acts." 

6 f. Who are acrToil Who are hy^pov rfyepoval And to whom does 
Srjpov refer? Tlie answer to each question has been disputed. Since 
Solon's ]joenis, and the present poem in particular, are the chief source of 
information concerning social and political conditions in Athens at the end 
of the seventh century, there is little assistance to be found outside the 
poem itself Von Leutsch asserts that the arrroL and the S^/xo? are the no- 
bility, claiming to find evidence for this in the narrative of Diogenes Lacr- 
tius i 49. What this evidence is I cannot discover. Bergk assumes that 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 197 

acTTOL are the nobles, and Weil defines them explicitly as " les vrais citoyens 
ou Eupatrides, oppost^s au 8^/^05, ^ la plfebe." It seems to me unlikely that 
at so early a period a j^olitical distinction of this sort would be made be- 
tween the two classes in the community ; the difference between them was 
still social and economic. All alike were olcttol, and the equilibrium of 
political rights was a problem for the future. On the other hand, olo-tol 
never, so far as I know, means the nobly born or the rich in contrast to the 
lower classes. In the present passage dorot are contrasted with 6eot and are 
precisely those special dvOpoiiroL whose home is the city of Athens, the human 
population of Attica. Wilamowitz, apparently interpreting daroL in this 
way, complains that xPVf^^'' Treic^o'/xevot is improperly connected with it : 
not the dcTToi as a whole, but the hrjjxov lyye/xoves are guilty of avarice ; there- 
fore XPVH"-^'- TreiOofxevoL is to be rejected as an " iibles Fiillsel." But cannot 
a whole people be accused of lawlessness, avarice, corruption, luxury, or any 
other social disorder, even though only a small number among them are ac- 
tually guilty of the offense ? To Solon it appeared that the people of Athens 
were too fond of money-making ; but he would not have denied that many 
among them were of a more admirable sort. Meyer finds a contrast between 
people of the town and people of the country : " Im iibrigen zerfallt in diesem 
Gedicht die Schilderung der Missstande in zwei scharf gesonderte Theile : 
(1) Habgier und Ungerechtigkeit der daroL, besonders der St^jjlov lyye/Aove?, 
vss. 5-22, zusammengefasst in den Worten ravra /xcv iv S-qfjuo aTp€<f)€TaL 
KaKa, also die Verhaltnisse der regierenden Biirgerschaft, der stadtischen 
Bevolkerung ; (2) vss. 23-26 Notlage der -nevL^oi, der abhangigen Land- 
bevolkerung." I see no justification for this view whatever, either in par- 
ticular words and phrases or in the spirit of the whole poem, darv does 
indeed mean the town in contrast with the country in classical Greek. But 
in Homer, Hesiod, the elegiac and iambic poets of the seventh and sixth 
centuries, with which last group ao-rot is a common word, it never means 
townsfolk in contrast with countryfolk. Again, roiv irtvixp^v in vs. 23 can- 
not be properly confined to country people. There was need and distress 
among the SrjixLoepyoi, as well as among the agrarian serfs. The real contrast 
lies between iv St^/xo) (23) and yauxv dXkoSarrrjv (24), the condition of Athe- 
nians at home and the condition of Athenians abroad, rtov 7revtxp<»>v comes to 
the front in its sentence, because it is the greater destitution of this class that 
has brought about their banishment to foreign lands. Bi^fxov may mean 



198 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

either the whole people of Athens, ol daroi, or the lower classes as con- 
trasted with the nobility. The one thing it cannot rneau, as I believe all 
will admit, is Avhat von Leutsch claims for it — "the nobility." Prob- 
ably in the oligarchical order of the early sixth century Br]iJio<; would have 
sounded like the "masses," the undifferentiated people. S-qfxov lyye/xdve?, 
as nil recognize, are not " leaders of the democratic party." There was as 
yet no democratic party ; it was Solon himself who first created it. The 
" leaders of the people " are the oligarchic counterpart of the kings of the 
earlier regime, who in the epic are often enough called rjye/xove^;. In Athens 
at the beginning of the sixth century they were the members of the upper 
cla -s, which was determined partly by birth and partly by wealth, and, in 
particular, those Avho for the time being held the public offices, all of which 
were reserved to the upper class. Bergk's claim that the lyy^/aoves are tlie 
7r/3VTavets rcuv vavKpapoiv is unfounded. Cf. vii 1 Brjfxo<i S' (TS' ai^ apicTTa avv 
TfycfjioveaaLv cttoito ; xiii 3 dvSpwv 8' iK p^cydXiov ttoAis oAAvrat ; Theogn. 
41 f. dcTTOt fxkv yap td^ otBe aa6<f>pove<;, lyye/adve? Se | TeTpd(f>aTaL TroXkrjv cs 
KaKor-qra 7r€(rctv ; 855 f. iroXkaKi 8rj ttoXis rj^^ 8t' lyye/xdvtov KaKorrfra | aKT7re/3 
KCKAt/xJvT/ vavs Trapa y^jv iSpapev. 

7. €Tot/xos : cf. Hom. //. xviii 96 avriKa ydp tol tTrctra p.eO' "FtKTopa 
TTorpoq kroipLO<;. 

9. Cf. Pindar Isth. iii 1 ff. ct ti? dvSpoiv €.vTv^rj(TaL<i rj crvv cvB6^oL<i 
deO\oL<i r; aOivei ttXovtov /care^et (fypaalv alavrj Kopov, diio<i cuXoytiat? doruiv 
/M,e 'xt^^ai. Cicero pro Murena 9, 2 1 ego mei satietatem magno meo labore 
superavi. 

9 f ovhl irapovaaq . . . rja-vxtr) : the passage should be construed as 
f )llo\vs : " to enjoy (ev(f>poavva<i) in an orderly (koo-^ccv) and quiet (iv rjfTvxir}) 
manner the good things which actually lie before them {irapovaa^) on the 
banquet-board (Sairds)." There are several meanings of Koa-pclv to be noted : 
(1) The most usual meaning in Homer is "to marshal " an army — a use 
80 common that it is not necessary to quote instances. (2) It means " to 
prepare by careful arrangement," and is used idiomatically of the preparation 
of a meal. Hom. Od. vii 13 ; Pindar Nem. i 22 ; Xen. Cyr. viii 2, 6. Cf. 
also HoTn. Ilymn vii 59 yXvKcp-qv Koap,rj(raL doiBi^v ; and Solon xx 2. (3) It 
means also " to conduct in an orderly manner," "govern," "rule." Herodotus 
i 59 €vt/xc Trjv TToXiv Koapeuiv KaA-to? re kol cv ; 100 ravra p€v Kara rd.'^ StKa^ 
(TToUi, TciSc Sc dkXa iK€KO(Tp.€aT6 ol ', Soph. Ant. 677 ovTO)<i dp.vvTe tort Tot?. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 199 

KoaixovfX€voL<;, | kovtol ywatKos ov8afxu)<; rjaa-qrea, " the regulations made by 
ol Koa-fxovvTe^, the rulers ; meaning here, his own edicts " (Jebb) ; Ajax 
1103 f. ov8^ €aO* OTTOV aol rovSe KoafirjaaL irXcov \ a.p^<; €K€lto 6eafxo<; rj 
Koi TcoSe o-€. (4) The meaning " adorn " or " embellisli " is too common to 
require illustration. Now, in the present passage, the first and last mean- 
ings are manifestly impossible ; the second cannot be allowed because the 
ctK^poo-wa? are already vapovaa^. Indeed, I do not think there is any 
reminiscence of the Homeric Sop-rrov iKoafxec in spite of the juxtaposition of 
KoafxcLv and Satros. It is apparent, therefore, that the only meaning admis- 
sible is "to conduct in an orderly manner," and it is not by any means 
unlikely that there was some political connotation which suggested the word 
to Solon. At any rate, as Jebb points out (Soph. Ant. 677), the word 
Kocrpio^; was used of a constitution, especially an oligarchical constitution 
(Thuc. iv 76 p-eraarrjaaL tov Koapov koI e? SrjpLOKpaTLav . . . rpcij/aL ; viii 72 
p.€V€Lv iv Tw 6X.Lyap)(LK<^ Kocrpno). Furthermore, the Cretan Koap-oi, referred 
to by Aristotle (Pol. ii 10, 1272 a), were oligarchical magistrates with 
military as well as civil powers. Peppmiiller's translation, " sich hingeben," 
which is accepted by Bucherer, is out of the question. If Koapelv is prop- 
erly understood, it only remains to observe that Satro? is to be construed 
with €v<f>pocrvva<; and that the whole sentence is to be taken in a figurative 
sense. Concerning both points there is some difference of opinion. Bergk 
construed 8atT05 with riavx^r} and assumed that the line referred to the 
meals which were served to the magistrates in the Prytaneion at the 
public expense. Others suppose that Solon is thinking of the convivial 
meetings of the political clubs (I'pavot) where demagogues fan the flames 
of discontent. In answer to these contentions, it may be said: (1) we 
are, presumably, at too early a period for democratic propaganda in the 
clubs ; (2) it is not likely that official meals in the Prytaneion were called 
" festivities " (cvc^poo-was) ; (3) if this sentence is to be taken in its literal 
sense, referring either to the Prytaneion or to clubs, then ovk cVto-Tavrat 
Karex^Lv Kopov must also be understood literally, which would make the 
St^p-ov rjyep,6va<; guilty of literal gluttony. The fact is that Solon is speak- 
ing metaphorically. As men of unrestrained appetite conduct themselves 
at dinner, so the leaders in the state conduct themselves in their uncontrolled 
greed for riches. 

11. "They yield to the temptation of dishonest practices." Cf xl 12 



200 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

oAA' dStKoi?* epy/xao-i TreiOo/xevo^ | ovk c^cXoov CTrerat [sc. 6 TrA-Ovrosj. The 
phrase is more natural with trXovro^ as its subject, than with a personal 
subject, and it seems to me unlikely that Solon wrote these words so soon 
after vs. 6. 

12. KTcdvwv : not in Homer, but Hesiod uses it (IF. and D. 315). 

13. "Weil says that KKk-movaiv looks like a gloss and that he would 
prefer /xapTrrovo-iv ; Butcher marks kActttovo-iv c^' ap-rrayrj as a locus despe- 
ratus. This seems to me hypercritical. KXiTTTovcriv hardly requires justifica- 
tion, and for €<^' apirayrj the following quotations afford adequate support : 
Horn. //. xxiii 574 cs fxicrov dfx(fiOT€poL(n StKacrcraTe fxrjS* in dpioyrj ; Dem. 
xviii 273 ov yap iir evvoiay ip,ol •napcyjjipi.i'; iXTTLdwv kol ^yXov kol tljjlCjv ', 
Thuc. 1 37, 2 <f)aal Be ivfxpxL^iav 8ta to (Tuxfypov ovSev6<; ttoj SeiaaOai' to S* 
€Trl KaKOvpyCa Koi ovk dperrj CTrcTT/Scvo-av. 

13. dXXoOev dXXo<: : "one from one source, another from another." 

14. "They have no fear of Dike, that august being upon whom, as 
upon a rock, human society rests." Two other passages should be read in 
connection with this, and the three will be found to throw light upon each 
other : (1) Pindar 01. xiii 6 ff. cv ra [Corinth] yap Evvofxta vatct, Kao-tyviJTa 
T£, (iddpov TToXioiv do-<^aX€9, AtKa KOL 6p.6Tpo<f>o^ Eilprjva, TafxCaL dvBpddi 
irXovTov, -^pva-eai TratSes evftovXov ©c'/aito? ; (2) Aesch. Choeph. 646 f. AtVas 
8' ipetSeTat irv6p,rjv' Trpo^aXKCveL 8' Aio-a <fia(Tyavovpy6<;. Evidently dep-cOXa 
Alkyj^; is equal to Aixas irv6p.riv, and the Oip.edXa or Trv^/xryv is Dike herself 

— a ^dOpov TToXiOiv dcrc^aXc?. Pindar, praising Ei»i/o/xta as well as Aikt;, 
must certainly have had Solon's words in mind ; and the startling mixture 
of metaphors — Justice, the sister of Eunomia and the foundation of cities 

— reminds one of the personification of Ge in ix. Indeed, the figure of Ge 
is instructive in the present connection. As Ge is the material basis of 
human life, so Dike is its spiritual basis ; but both alike are possessed of 
divine personality and both are sacred (o-e/avd). To use a familiar modern 
metaphor. Dike might be called the " corner-stone of society." The passage 
from Aeschylus, for which a variety of interpretations have been oft'ered, 
means, I believe, " Dike is now being established as the foundation," for 
the changed fortunes of the children of Agamemnon. Here, as elsewhere, 
AtK>7 ^^ ^ negative principle, personified as a being who either restrains men 
from certain actions or punishes them if they commit them. Of. Aesch. 
Seven 670 f. ^ 8^t' a.v elrj TravSiKoo? i/^cv8a>vv/xos Aikt;, ^uvotio-a <f>(DTL rravroXpua 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 201 

<^po/a9. Cf. Croiset (1903, p. 587) : " Cette deesse de la justice n'est plus 
tout h, foit, comme on le voit, celle d'Hdsiode, la vierge faible et craintive, mal- 
traitde par des mains brutales, et qui criait k son p^re pour obtenir protec- 
tion. Elle a maintenant une force patiente, elle attend parce qu'elle est siire 
de ses fins, et, dans le silence eftrayant oil elle s'enveloppe, elle ressemble aux 
lois myst^rieuses et in^luctables de la nature, que rien ne presse, mais que 
lien non plus n'arrete ni ne retarde." 

15. TO. ytyvo/xem . . . iovra: cf. Horn. II. i 70 (= Hes. Theog. 38) 
ra T kovTo. rd r iacro/jieva irpo t iovra. 

16. rjXO' : a gnomic aorist. 

16. Cf. Plut. Sol. v: "To this Solon is said to have answered that 
men kept their agreements with each other when neither party profits by 
the breaking of them, and he was adapting his laws (d/o/Ao^erat) to the citi- 
zens in such a manner as to make it clear to all that the practice of justice 
was more advantageous than the transgression of the laws." 

17. rovTo refers to the moral corruption of the leaders in the city, which 
has been described in vss. 5-15. Starting from them, this corruption is 
beginning to spread (^87 epx^rai) like a sore over the whole city. cXko? 
a<f>vKTov is in apposition to tovto. Weil explains tovto as "cette apparition 
vengeresse de la Justice," an idea which the neuter tovto would hardly sug- 
gest and with which ^Ko<i a4>vKTov is incompatible. Furthermore, he makes 
this same pronoun the subject of eTrcyeipet in vs. 19 (reading y for 17 — 
*'une correction irr^fldchie "). This requires that vs. 18 be taken as a 
parenthesis, which seems too awkward for consideration. 

17 fi". tpx^rai (17), TjXvOe (18), iireyetpeL (19), describe the actual 
state of aff'airs in Athens. The whole city, under the blight of corruption, 
has sunk into servitude ; civil war, though still asleep, is about to wake. 
wXeaev (20) is a gnomic aorist like rjXOe in vs. 16. 

18. The subject of -^XvOe is -^fxeTipr) ttoAis understood fromTroAct in the 
preceding line and uppermost in the mind of Solon throughout the poem. 
Solon uses the word SovXocrvvrjv elsewhere of the state of the Athenian 
people (xiii 4 ; xiv 4). 

19. -q : i.e., SovkoavvT). Other commentators hold diff'erent opinions: 
Weil (see on vs. 17) understands Aiki; as the subject of iireyeipeL. Wolf 
inquired, " Utrum ^ Slktj an rj ttoXi? 1 " and Schaefer replied, " Mira dubita- 
tio Wolfii. De urbe dici quis ambigat 1 " The simple verb cyet/octv is com- 



202 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

moil ill Homer with ttoAc/aov and such words. For the idea that the 
enslavcinent of a part of the citizens leads to war, cf. Arist. Pol. ii 12, 
1274 a 17 /XT^Se ya/j Tovrov KvpLo^ mv 6 StJ/xos SovX.o^ av e'lr] koI TroAe/xio? and 
pas!<i7)i. 

20. eparryv: only once in Homer — //. iii 64 fxrj fxoL Sojp' epara irpocfiept 
Xpv(r€rf<; 'A^/aoStrr/?, but common in the Homeric hymns and in the elegists ; 
cf. Tyrtaeus viii 28 6<f>p* ipaTt}'; rjfir]^ ayXaov av6o<i txU'-> Theogn. 1131 dAA' 
rjftrjV iparrjv oXoc^tvpopiaL, rj /x' imXe/n-u. 

21 f. The difficulties which are presented in these lines lie in the inter- 
pretation of the words Svapieviwv and (tvv6Sol<; and in the uncertainty of 
the reading toU aSiKovaL <j>'Xai<i. (1) BvaptviiDv. Are these enemies in- 
ternal or external? Certainly not external. It would not be true to say 
that Athens was being rapidly destroyed by external enemies. Megara 
indeed was a menace, but not formidable. Furthermore, the whole poem is 
concerned with the social and economic condition of Athens ; foreign rela- 
tions are not mentioned. If, then, they are internal enemies, who are 
they? Clearly the persons described in vss. 5-16, the men who shrink 
from nothing in their lust for wealth. But Sucr/xei/eW means something 
more than "the persons hereinbefore mentioned.' It is an ugly word and 
in effect predicative in the present sentence : " those who are bringing about 
the ruin of the state " may not unjustly be denominated the enemies of the 
state. What Solon chiefly wishes to assert is not the decline of the city, 
not the rapidity of its decline, but the venomous hostility of the men who 
are responsible for its decline. (2) awo^oi^. Two meanings are suggested 
for this word. The first is "conflicts" or "combats." Schaefer says " cV 
avi/oSois verto in confiictu : rots dStKovo-t autem est dativus quem dicas in- 
commodi." Shilleto's note is: "Wastes away in conflicts with those who 
wrong their kindred and friends [reading ^'Aov?]. I conceive the dative 
Tots dSiKovo-t is approi)riately governed of the verbal o-tVoSos, as -n-orpiov kXcl- 
voL^ Ad/S^iK-SaaLv Soph. Antic/. 860." Grammatically it is not iin})ossible 
to tak(i crvvoBoL^ thus, though both explanations of the dative rot? dScKovaL 
are a little strained. But what are these conflicts? They are not with ex- 
ternal foes ; and civil dissension witli its bloodshed is only just beginning 
(vs. 19). It is, therefore, generally recognized as better to take awoSotq in 
the other sense of "gatherings" or "unions." " Ces com/ressus," says Weil, 
" qui plaisent aux mauvais citoyens, ne sont peut-etre pas, comme on ex- 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 203 

plique gdndralement, des combats, mais des reunions factieuses, des associations 
(iTaLpuiL), foyers de conspiration et de guenes civiles." This I believe to be 
the right view. But it is not necessary or even desirable to assume that 
these avvoSoL were primarily political in purpose. Undoubtedly the men 
who attended these meetings were of the ruling class ; they had no political 
object to achieve ; they were absorbed in money-making. They may, indeed, 
have sought to manipulate the political situation to their own profit. But 
they liad no definite political propaganda, neither a tyranny nor a democracy. 
(3) Tots olSlkovo-l <^tXats. ^t Aats is Bergk's conjecture ; the manuscripts 
give <^tAots or cf>t\ov^. Emendations are numerous, but Bergk's is the sim- 
plest and the best. o-vvoSol, such as have just been described, are properly 
said to be dear to mischief-makers. Men who are occupied with their own 
selfish purposes, regardless of the good of the community, are accustomed to 
hold secret meetings in which they plot for their own advancement ; honest 
and loyal ambitions, on the other hand, do not seek the dark. One of the 
other proposed emendations of the line deserves special consideration. Diels 
is offended by the sound of the diphthong and vowel in juxtaposition in 
Tpvx^TaL iv, a thing which is not allowed, he maintains, by the elegiac poets 
in the first foot of the pentameter unless there is also a sense-pause at the 
same point. Therefore he demands a sense-pause in the present line, and 
rewrites it as follows : Tpvx^raL, iv o-woSots r la dSiKovaL <^i Aot. Now I 
am not disposed to give much weight to the metrical argument ; the elegiac 
remains are too scanty to justify any generalization. But even supposing we 
accept Diels's law, there is no serious breach of it in the reading adopted in 
the present text. Though the pause after Tpvx^raL is not sufficiently im- 
portant to be marked by a comma, there is nevertheless a pause. The sense 
is complete with the word Tpvxerat and the remainder of the line is added 
to explain the nature of the hostile acts by which the city is being brought 
to ruin (cf. the note on Sva-fxevewv above). What is the meaning of Diels's ver- 
sion ? The Bva-fxevewv, he says, are the optimates ; the (f>tXoi, Solon's friends, 
the leaders of the popular party. But supposing Svafxcvecjv could be readily 
understood in this sense, is it possible to believe that any reader would 
recognize who the <^t Aot are and whose friends they are ? Solon is not con- 
cerned in this poem with the difficulty of restraining both parties from ex- 
cess and he is not identified with the popular party. Diels discovers some- 
thing else in the two Hues which I do not believe any open-minded reader 



204 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

would have suspected : aarv is contrasted with avvoSoi in a chiastic arrange- 
ment : " inimici potentia abusi in publicis bonis i)raedantur, sodales item in 
rebus privatis inhonestum hicrum facessunt." But darv, alone, without em- 
phasis by position, is the last word a Greek poet would choose in order to 
contrast public with private affairs ; and avvoSoL are just as likely to be con- 
cerned with public affairs as private. If <^t Aoi are to be contrasted with 
3vo-/x€ve(uv, then surely they must be friends and enemies of the same person, 
who can only be Solon ; and Diels does not claim that the Sva-fieveojv are 
enemies of Solon. The following emendations may also be mentioned : 
Tpv)(eTaL, iv crvvoSots 0* ovs [^ swos] aScKovai <^tAovs (HiUer) ; iv ai^voSois 
Tr]<i dStK77crt</)t Aot? (Ahrens) ; tyJs olSik' iarl cfiiXa (Bergk) ; tcov irdpiov dSl- 
K019 (Hecker) ; toZs d8i/covcrt <I>l\ov<s (Keene). 

21 f. The figure of disease, which was first suggested in cXkos a.<f)VKTov 
(vs. 17), is still in the poet's mind, rpvx^rai is often used of a physical 
decline. The city which hitherto has possessed the charms of ruddy health 
{■n-oXv^paTov) has fallen ill of a wasting sickness. 

23 ff. Cf. ix 8-12. xii was written before, ix after, the adoption of 
Solon's remedial measures. 

23. orrpetpeTat : ordinarily this word is used in its present sense only 
with persons as subjects, and it is not common with them ; here it undoubtedly 
produces a slight personification. Cf. Horn. Hymn to Ajjollo 175 T7/xets 8' 
vfX€T€pov KAeo9 olaofxev oaaov ctt' atav | dvOpoiirisiv (rrpecfiO/xeaOa 7rdA.ets ^v 
vatcrawo-as; Soph. Electr. 516 (Clytemnestra to Electra) dveLfxevr) fxev, o)? 
cotKtt?, av (TTpecfyeL; Aeschrio 2, 2 (Hiller-Crusius) a-revov KaO* '^XX-^o-ttovtov, 
i/XTTopwv x^PV^^ I ^ctvrat daXd(T(Tr)'i iaTpecfjovTO ixvpixrjKe<;. 

25. deiKeAtoio-t : "degrading." 

26. Thus the social disorder affects the personal life of every individual. 

27. A man's house is no longer his castle. 

27. The inversion of ovKerL is found elsewhere, e.g., Soph. Track. 161 
vvv 8' d)s €t' ovk cjv eiTTC ; Phil. 1217 ir ovSev dfxi ; Aristoph. Plut. 1177 
OvcLv €T ovSeU d$LOL ; but it is natural only where the two elements of the 
compound, though inverted, form a close phrase. In the present line the 
separation is justified by the idiomatic combination ovk iOiXovat, meaning 
"tliey refuse." 

27. tx^Lv: ocpiivalent to d/uweiv, "ward off'," "repel," the object being 
TO Sr)fx6(7Lov KUKov. Cf. Houi. //. x'l 820 dXX' dye fxoi rohe cittc, Siorpecfyeq 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 205 

ISivpvTTvX r/pcL)s, I ry p €TL ttov a^yaovai ireXiiypiov "EKTop' 'A^aiot', I rj rj8r} 
<f>OiaovTaL vtt' avTov Sovpl Sa/AeVre? ; xxi 309 <^t'Ae KaaiyvrjTt, (j9ivo<i dv€po<s 
dfJL(f)OTepoL irep cr^co/xev. 

28 f. v<f>ep6opev, evpe : not gnomic aorists in the strict sense of the 
term, but aorists describing what has come to be the regular course of events 
in Athens at this particular time. 

29. In Homer el is more frequent than idv in conditions with the sub- 
junctive ; in the Attic poets it is very rare. 

30. TavTtt : referring to what precedes. Vss. 3:!— 10 sum up in more 
general terms the lesson which is to be learned from the particular observa- 
tions in the earlier part of the poem. 

32. According to Hesiod {Theog. 902) Eunomia was one of the Horae : 

Sevrepov i^ydyero [sc. Zeu?] XiTraprjv ddefxiv, ?) Teicev"£lpa^^ 
Kvvo/jLltjv re ^UrjV re koX F^lp^vyv reOaXvlav^ 
at ipy* o)pevov<Tt KaTa6vr]T0L(n /SpoTolai. 

The three sisters appear again in Pindar 01. xiii 6 ft", (quoted on vs. 14). In 
the present passage Eunomia is plainly not a person, but a rhetorical per- 
sonification. One of the poems of Tyrtaeus is called Eunomia by Aristotle 
(Pol. 1307 a, 1). 

32. dpTia : see on iv 4. 

32. (xTTOc^atVet : "render"; Aristoph. Knights 817 av 8' 'AOrjvaiOvq 
i^7]Tr](Ta<; p.LKpoTroXiTa<; aTrocfirjvaL ; Wasps 1028 tva ra? M.ov(Ta<; alcrcv )(prjTaL 
fjLY) Trpoayoiyov'i aTro^rJvry. Parallels in prose are not uncommon, but the 
use is very rare in poetry. 

35. Cf. Soph. Track. 1000 /xavtas dvdo^ ; Aesch. Pers. 823 vfipL<; yh.p 
l^avBovcr iKapirwac araxw | arT/s, oOcv TrdyKXavTov i^a/xa d€po<i. 

36. evOvvcL 8t/<as crKoXtas : i.e., puts an end to corruption and introduces 
impartiality and even-hantled justice in judicial decisions. Cf ix 19 and 
the note. Cf. also Hesiod W. and i>. 261 ff. . . . (SacnXimv, dl Xvypd 
voevvTe<i | dXXr) 7rapKXiV0)ai SiVa? crKoXtcos eveVovTe?. | ravra <f>vXa(j(T6fxevoi, 
l3aaLXrj€<i, lOvvere f Si'/ca? | 8(i>po(fidyoL, aKoXiwv 8e StKeojv ctti Trdyxv XdOeaOe ; 
Pindar Pyth. iv 153 evOwe Aaots SUas. 

38. Cf. Horn. 11. xvii 384 l/otSos dpyaXer/s. 

39. TTLvvrd ; this word is not found in the Iliad but appears a number 
of times in the Odyssey. It is used, almost without exception, of persons, 



206 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

as in Theogn. 501 dvBpo<; 8' otvos ISei^e voov, \ kol ^aXa -ntp ttlvvtov ; Lucian 
(Bacch. 8) has it in the neuter : ei 8e tth^vto. So^ece to. Xeyo/xeva, 6 2etAr;j/o? 
apa yv rXecos. 

XIII-XIV 

References : Hadley (1903) ; Heideiihain (1882) ; Heineinaiin (18i>7) : 
Hiller (1883) ; Murray (1880) ; riccoloiiiini (1895) ; Sitzler (1879, 1894, 1900) ; 
Stadtiuiiller (1882) ; WilanKnvitz (1893). On these two poems see pp. 99 ff. 

XIII 

1. xLovos p.ivo<i -^Se ;(a/\a^77? : /xcvo? is thus used of natural forces by 
Homer : //. v 5'24 o0p' evSrjat /xevos Bopeao kol akXiov \ S^a-^prjiiiv dvifiiov ; vi 
182 Setvov dTroTTVCiovaa Trvpos /xeVo^ aWofXivoLo ; xii IS TrorajaoJi/ /xeVo? 
cio-ayayovre?. 

3. fjiovapxov : a similar use of the genitive is found in Thuc. i 8, 2 oi re 
yj(T(Tov<i virepicvov ttjv tcov Kpetcrcrdvcov hovXeiav. The word p^ovap^o^ appears 
first here, unless Theognis 52 is earlier, wliere it appears in the Ionic form 

p,ovvap)(0<;. 

3 if. The verbs oWvrai, cTreo-ei/, ecrrt are general in sense, making state- 
ments of universal application ; rjSrj XPV applies to the actual state of attairs 
in Athens. 

5. €$dpavT : it is more likely that tliis is intended for i^dpavra. than for 
i^dpavTL, since the elision is easier and the need of a dative is not felt till or- 
paScov IcTTL is heard. The S^^os should be understood to be the subject of 
the participle, and the ambitious politician its object. 

6. The need of this admonition is seen from the last line of xiv. The 
Athenians nuist watch closely every symptom of the times and so be ready 
to defend their rights before it is too late. Cf Pint. Sol. xxx 5 : ore Kal to 
p.vqp.ov€v6p.f.vov CLirev, o)? Trpiorjv pikv rjv (.vpxLpearepov avTol^ to KioXvauL rijv 
Tvpavi'fSi <TvvL(TTap.evr}v, vvv Se p.€L^6v iari kol A.a/X7rpdrepoi/ iKKOif/uL kul dve- 
Xelv avveaTCoaav yjSr] Kal 7r€(f>VKv2av. 

XIV 

1. The same insistence on human responsibility for disaster is found in 
the opening lines of xii. 

1. Xvypd: cf, Hom. Od. xviii 134 dW' ore Si] koL Xvypd dcol p.dKap€<i 
TcA-ccrcuo-t I Kal rd cf>€p€L deKa^d/jtevo? TeTXrjort Ovp.(Jo. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 207 

2. TovroDv fxolpav : tlie gonitive is appositional. Cf. xv 18 fiolpav Oavd- 
Tov and Theogn, 3~)G roXfjui, Kvpve^ KaKoiatv cVet Kao-^Aoto-ii/ €;(atp£?, | eJre (re 
Koi TOVTOiV fMolp' €7re/?ttAA.ev €X^iv ; 592 dix(f>oT€po}V to Aaxo?. 

3. pijcria Sji/tcs : "giving pledges or hostages," tliereby {)utting your- 
selves in their power. Soph. Oed. Col. 858 koL fxet^ov dpa pvaiov ttoXu 
Taxa. I Or'jcreL'^, where, as Jebb points out, pvj-iov GetvaL is equivalent to the 
regular phrase ivix^pov Odvai. When one recalls the mortgaged lands which 
had been set free by Solon (cf. ix), the figure seems a very natural one for 
the poet to have employed to describe exactly what the S>}/xos must have 
done in its relations with Pisistratus. This reading seems to have more point 
than the one adopted by most editors — pvfxaTa Swres, which is given by 
Diodorus and Plutarch. These two evidently understood pv/xara to refer to 
the bodyguard which the people had granted to Pisistratus. But Wila- 
mowitz has pointed out that since tovtov<; in this line is in the plural, the 
poet is not thinking of Pisistratus alone ; and I might add that since pvfxara 
is in the plural, it must refer to something more than the bodyguard alone. 
The phrase must mean, then, " giving them the means of defense " ; and it 
is not easy to see just what this refers to. Peppmiiller explains pvfjuara as 
"Schutz" or " Stiitze," by which he would seem to imply that the phrase 
means ''lending them their support," or something of the kind : and this 
strains both the concrete pv/xara and the literal meaning of Sovvai. 

3. TovTov; : the particular avSpa<s /xeyaAou? who were in power at the 
time. If the poem was written after the usurpation of Pisistratus, the 
reference must be to Pisistratus and his party. Wilamowitz (1893, II, 312) 
insists that there is no reason to believe that this is true. 

5. dXwTreKos Lxveai ^aivet : " walks with the tread of a fox " ; t^vo? here 
means a " foot-fall," as in Eur. Or. 140 crZya. trtya, Xcirrhv ixyo<; dp(3vXr]^ TcOere^ 
fiY) KTviretT ; Phoen. 105 opeye vvv opeye yepaidv via x^V "■'^^ K\tfxdK(ov 
iroSoj I'xvos iwavT€\Xo)v. The interpretation "follow the footsteps of a 
fox" (so Peppqmller, Bucherer, Kynaston) offers a metaphor which does 
not properly describe the cunning of the Athenians. The shrewdness 
of the fox was proverbial in the sixth century : cf. Archilochus 96 (Hiller- 
Crusius) Tw 8* ap' aXwirt)^ KepSiXy avvi^vTeTO \ ttvkvov exovaa voov ; Semo- 
nides 7, 7 (H.-C.) r^v 8' e^ dAtrp^s ^eo? I^t/k' dAwTrcKOs | yvvat/ca, iravTOiv 
iSpLv ' ovSe fxLv KaKO}v I XeXyjOev ov8(v ovSe Twv dfX€Lv6v<j)v. Piccolomini com- 
pares Cratinus frag. 128 Kock vfjLOiv et? fiev cKao-ro? dXiairrji 8wpo8oK€iTat 



208 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

(emending the last word to 8(opo8oKa Se), and Aristoph. Knights 752 ff. 
oI'/AOt KaKo8at/Mo)i/, (i)9 aTToAwA' • 6 yap yepwv \ olkol fxkv duSpoJV iaTL Se^toora- 
T05, I oTav S' €7rt ravTT^crt KaOrjrai rrj^i Trerpa? | K€)(rjvev ojcrirep t^TroSt^cov 
tcr^aSa?. 

G. ;>(ai;vo? I'ovs : ef. Pindar Pyth. ii61 ^awa irpaTriSt TraXatpovcl Kevea; 
Solon viii 4 ;(a{)m /nei/ rdr' i(f>pd(ravTo. ' One hundred and fifty years later 
the Athenians were still afflicted with this open-mouthed stupidity, but 
Aristophanes claims to have cured them : Acharn. 633 fF. <^r;o-tv 8* cti/at ttoA- 
Acuv dyaOuiv a^to? r/xtv o iroLrjry]!;, | TraTjTa? t'/xas ^evLKOtat Aoyots /xi^ Acav 
i^airaTdcrdaL, | /ar^^ rjBccrOaL OoiTvevofxivovi p.r)T clvai ^ai)v07roAtra?. 

7. aioAov : this word suggests admirably both the nimble eloquence 
which fascinates the auditors and the shifty wiles whicli delude them. 
Aeschylus has the compound aioAdo-ro/xos in From. 661 used of the obscu- 
rity of an oracle. The suggestion of trickiness and deceit is found in Hesiod's 
compoimd aioAd/x77Tts {Theog. 511) and in Pindar Nem. viii 25 fxeyLcrrov 8' 
aioAo) if/evSiL y€pa<; avrcTaTat. 

XV 

References: Hiller (1888); Sitzler (1879); Stadtmuller (1882); Weil 
(1862); Wilamowitz (1893). 

This poem, which is manifestly preserved in its complete form, is ascribed 
to Solon, not only by Philo, but also by the four other authors by whom it 
is quoted ; Diogenes Laertius also, though he docs not transcribe the poem, 
states that Solon fixed the limit of human life at seventy years ; and Herod- 
otus (i 32), in telling the story of the interview between Solon and Croesus, 
puts into Solon's mouth the words : es €^8o/xr//<ovra erea ovpov rrj<i ^o-q^ 
dvOpumoi 7rporiOr]pL. Furthermore, Aristotle refers to certain poets who di- 
vide the space of human life into periods of seven years : Pol. 1335 b, 32 fi". 
(speaking of the age limits within which a man should beget children) 8to Kara 
Ty]V Tr}s Siavota? a.Kp.T]V. avrrf 8e iariv iv rot? TrAetfrroi? rjvTrep tC)V 7roLrjTo)v 
Tive? dpy'jKiKnv oi fxeTpovvT£<; rats ijSSopdat rrjv rjXiKiav, Trepl rov )(p6vov tov 
Tcuv Trevrr/Kovra eTtoi/ ; 1336 b, 38 ff. 8w 8' clalv TjXLKtat Trpo? a? dvayKaiov 
StrjpTjaOai ttjv iraLSetav, /xcToi Trjv aTro rdv cttto, pi-^pL<i rj^r}<; kul irdXiv /xera, 
Trjv d(f>* y'l^Tj'; P'^\pi tcuv evds Kul clkoctlv irwv. ol yap rats kfihopdiTi 8tatpof v- 
TC9 ra? rfXtKiuq d>9 cVt to ttoXv Xiyovaiv ov KttKW?, 8et 8e rfj SiatpecreL Trj<; 
(f)v(T(.ois iiraKoXovOelv' irdcra yap T€)(vr} kul 7rai8etu to TrpocrAetTrov rrjs (^ucrews 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 209 

/SovXerai avairXripovv. It is extremely probable, therefore, that the poem is 
a genuine composition of Solon. Its authenticity, however, has been dis- 
puted. Porson rejected the poem on two grounds : first, because of its 
prosaic and unpoetical character ; second, because in xxxvii Solon asserts 
that a man ought to be glad to live till his eightieth year. Ahrens bluntly 
declared the poem spurious. Usener said that -n-a? rts in vs. 7 is an im- 
possible combination, and condemns the whole poem on this ground. These 
are very slender arguments. ttSs rts, as Wilamowitz points out, is found in 
Theognis, Aeschylus, Pindar, and Herodotus. As for the limit of human 
life, Solon may well have recognized that seventy years was the general rule, 
and yet, in his healthy attitude toward the world, it is only natural that 
when the pessimist Mimnernus fixed the limit at sixty, or ten less than 
seventy, he should have insisted that eighty, or ten more, was better. The 
argument from style leads nowhere. The poem is not an inspired produc- 
tion. But it is characterized by neatness, precision, symmetry ; a certain 
measure of variety is attained in spite of a forbidding subject. Judged by 
internal evidence, it is as likely to be the work of Solon as of another. The 
fact that he did not attain to the measure of poetical excellence displayed by 
Shakespeare in ^s You Like It when he was dealing with a similar theme, 
proves nothing. Solon was not a Shakespeare. 

The interest which the poem possessed for later writers was based on 
two circumstances : it attempts something like a scientific division of the 
space of human life, and it is an illustration of the significance of the num- 
ber seven. Hippocrates (Trept i^SoixdSoiu 5 = viii p. 636 Littr^) in a 
passage which is quoted by Philo immediately after Solon's poem, divides 
the life of man into seven ages : from the first year to the seventh, 7rai8tW ; 
from the eighth to the fourteenth, Trat? ; from the fifteenth to the twenty- 
first, fxeipaKLov ; from the twenty-second to the twenty-eighth, veai/to-Kos ; 
from the twenty-ninth to the forty-ninth, dvrjp ; from the fiftieth to the fifty- 
sixth, TTpeo-^vrr/s ; and from the fifty-seventh till death, yipoiv. Pollux (ii 4) 
repeats Hippocrates' seven ages ; and the subject of the division of the life 
of a man is discussed frequently (cf. Censorinus, de die natali, 1 4 ; Bois- 
sonade, Anecdota, II, 455 ; Daremberg, Notices et extraits de manuscrits 
medicaux, 1853, p. 141). Clement and Anatolius, on the other hand, as 
well as Philo, are led to quote Solon because they are discussing the prop- 
erties of the number seven. 



210 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Weil (1862) discovers strophic composition in the present poem, as he 
does in xl : " Das menschliche Leben, auf siebzig Jahre veranschlagt, wird 
in zchn Hebdomaden geteilt. Da aber die siebente und achte Hebdomade 
zusammengefasst sind, so ergeben sich nur neun Altersstufen, deren jeder ein 
Distichon gewidmet ist. Die drei ersten gehiiren der Jugend, die drei letz- 
ten dcm Greisenalter an, und das ganze zerfallt in drei Strophen von je drei 
Distichen." The same arguments can be brought against this proposal as 
have been advanced in the notes to xl. 

1. epKos 6S6vTo)v : a common Homeric phrase. 

2. TTpioTov: adverbial. 

5. TY] TpiTaTY] : SC. e/SSoixdSi. 

5. Cf. Hom. Od. xi 319 Trptv a-^oi'iv viro Kpora^oidiv lovXov^ [ avOrjcraL 
TrvKaaraiTc yeVvs cvavBi'i Aa^v^ ; and Aesch. Seven 664 ff. dXA' ovre vtv 
<f>vy6vTa jjLYjTpoOev (tkotov, \ ovt iv Tpo<j>cu(nv ou8' l<f>rj^rj(TavTa ttod, | ovt iv 
ycveiov avXXoyfj TpL^u>fxaTos. 

6. Cf. Aesch. From. 22 f. o-ra^evro? 8' rjXLOv (f>oL(3r) cfiXoyl \ xpoias 
afxeLif/€L<s avOo<s. 

7. Cf. Hom. II. xiii 484 koI 8' e^^CL "^/Brj^ av^os, o re Kparos iarl 
fxeyiaTOv. 

8. Locus desjjeratus. 

9 f. Hesiod ( IF. and D. 695) and Plato {Rep. 460 e and Laws 772 e) 
also regard thirty as the right age for a man to marry. 

9. p.f.pA>y)p.ivov : cf. Hesiod TF! and D. 616 tot tiruT dporov p,€fxvY)- 
/LteVos etvai | wpaiov ; 641 epywv /xefxvrjfxivos eTvat | oipaimv iravTiov. 

10. eto-OTTura) : cf. Hom. Hymn v 104 iroUi 8' ilaoTTLcru) Oakepov yovov. 
11 f. Cf. Horace Ars Poetica 166: Conversis studiis aetas animusque 

virilis | quaerit opes et amicitias, inservit honori, | commisisse cavet, quod 
mox mutare laboret. 

11. TTcpt Travra : a phrase found also in xiii 6 and xl 69. 

11. KttTapTverat : probably the earliest appearance of this verb in the 
sense of "train" or "educate." Homer has only the simple verb dpTvo> 
and uses it with v ; the compound always has v except in the present 
verse. 

13. eTTToi ... €1/ e^Bofida-Lv . . . oktio : obviously an effort to secure 
variety and avoid the repetition of the phrase which has been used four times 
already. The meaning is the same as if iv tyj i/SSo/xr) eftSofxdSi had been 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 211 

written, and the phrase is not parallel to iv Ittt irea-Lv of vs. 2, which means 
"in the course of seven years." 

15. /u-aXaKWTcpa : this word is not found in the present sense in Homeric 
or early elegiac poetry ; but an excellent parallel is furnished by Thucydides 
(ii 18, 3) : airtav 8e ovk iXa^^^LcrrrjV Ap>^t8a/xos eXafSev (xtt* avrov (i.e., from 
the methods employed by him at Oenoe), Sokiov Koi iv rrj iwaywyrj tov 
TToXefxov /xaXaKos etvat kol rots A9rjvaL0L<; €7rtT>;8eto?, ov Trapatvoiv Trpo^v/xws 
TToXcfxelv. 

17. It is interesting to recall that the Hebrew Psalmist also fixed the 
limit of human life at " three score years and ten." 

17. Kara fxerpov lkolto : i.e., KaOiKoiTO to ixerpov avrrj^ (sc. t^s BcKa.Trj'i 
€^8op,a8o?) ; TO fjierpov is the " full measure " or the " end." 

XVI 

References : Daremberg (1869) ; Hiller (1888) ; Madvig (1871) ; Piatt (1896); 
Sitzler (1879, 1900). 

On xvi and xvi-a see page 13, footnote 3. 

The two kinds of riches described in these lines may be called separable 
and inseparable riches, and Solon maintains that the second are at least as 
good as the first. Separable riches are such possessions as are enumerated 
in the first two lines — money, land, horses. Inseparable riches are those 
which are inherent in the person of the owner, and, as here conceived, they 
are purely physical. Perfect health and a sound body insure not only im- 
munity from pain, but also afford the means of positive enjoyment through 
the satisfaction of the normal appetites. But human appetites are not 
fixed and unalterable throughout life : each age brings its own desires and 
capacities. The formula, therefore, for inseparable human wealth (to speak 
in mathematical language) varies as the desires and capacities of the subject 
vary with the advancing years. Here is a whole philosophy of life. Con- 
fronted by the three allied enemies of the human race, disease, old age, and 
death, which is the better viaticum for a man to choose, separable or in- 
separable wealth ? The choice is easy : material possessions will avail 
against none of the foes, personal well-being will render at least one of them 
powerless. This is a slight amplification of Solon's thought, and presents 
the large principle upon which lie bases his disparagement of material riches. 



212 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

3, fxova ravTa : i.e., a(3pa iraOctv and crvv 8' cop?^ ytyverat dpfMoSca. 

4. yaa-jpL T€ kol irXevpfj Kal voaiv : datives of means with d/^pa Tra^etv ; 
the three parts of the body stand, by synecdoche, for the whole physique. 

4. Of. Horace Fp. i 12, 5 : Si ventri bene, si lateri est pedibusque tuis, 
nil I divitiae poterunt regales addere mains. 

4. Daremberg (1869, p. 9) : " . . . il (sc. Solon) a placd la vraie 
richesse, je veux dire la vraie santd, dans un bon estomac, dans une robuste 
poitrine et dans des pieds agiles ; s'il ne dit rien de la tete, c'est que dans 
I'antique medecine cette partie, dont la poitrine avait usurpd les fonctions, 
ne jouait pas encore le role important que lui accordent la physiologie et la 
pathologie modernes." 

4. aft pa iraOdv '. this phrase is ordinarily used to mean the enjoyment 
of such luxuries as money can buy, and comes as a surprise after three such 
humble sources of pleasure as yacrrpi, TrXevpfj, and ttoo-lv. 

5. TTtttSo? T ySe ywaiKo's : the genitive is to be taken with yjSr]. 

5. i-n-rjv Kal ravT a<^iKrjTai : ravra refers vaguely and somewhat guard- 
edly to the pleasures of love, which have already been suggested by TratSds t 
7}h\ yumtKos and which are more definitely named in rjft^. From the tone 
of this clause and the presence of Kat one may judge that such pleasures 
were not regarded as indispensable to happiness. 

6. rjftx] : parallel with the datives yaarpi re Kal irXevprj Kal Trocrtv and 
another source of the pleasures of the simple life. 

6. (Tvv 8' oiprj ktX. : this is still part of the relative clause introduced by 
(S in vs. 3. 

6. <^pr) : every season of human life from childhood to extreme old age. 
Each one of the eftSop-dSe^ described in xv may be called a wprj. 

G. dpfjioBca. : personal powers and external opportunities appropriate to 
each age. Perrin (1914), printing rjjSr) and cjprj in vs. 6, translates vss. 3-6 
as follows : "While to the other only enough belongs | To give him comfort 
of food, and clothes, and shoes, | Enjoyment of child and blooming wife, when 
these too come, | And only years commensurate therewith are his." This 
translation seems to me quite wrong for the following reasons : it leaves 
Tavra (vs. 3) out of account ; yaaTpt and ttoctlv might suggest food and 
shoes, but TrXevprj could hardly suggest clothes ; yjftrj belongs to 7rat8o? as 
well as to yvvfUKo?, and it is hardly likely that the boy should be the man's 
own son ; wp-q docs not naturally mean the whole stretch of a man's life ; 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 213 

and "commensurate therewith " is not clear — commensurate with what? 
Some of these errors are found also in Schneidewin and Hartung. Humbert 
has it correctly : "... celui (jui n'a que les biens suivants : les jouissances 
que procurent un bon estomac, de vigoureux poumons, des jambes solides, 
I'amour pendant sa jeunesse ou des plaisirs en rapport h son age." 

7. Treptojcria : a rare word ; found in a somewhat similar sense in Apoll. 
Rhod. A7'(/. ii 394 Trepnoata <j)vXa Be^^etpcov. 

XVII 

Reference: Wilamowitz (1893). 

Aristotle seems to have had in mind the whole poem of which these four 
lines are a fragment when he wrote (Uth. JVic. 1 179 a, 9 f.) : Kal SdXcov Sk tov<; 
evSat/xova? 'laioq aTre^atVero KaXcu5, eiTrwv /xerpt'cos tois iKTo<i K€^op7)yr]ixevov<i, 
TTCTrpaydra? 8e KaWtara, w? wero, Kal (iefiniiK6Ta<i aoxfypovdii' evSe^erat yap 
fxerpLa KCKTrjixevov; Trparretv a Set. 

1. KaKot, dyaOot: not primarily a moral distinction. The dyaOot are 
the persons of good family who have had the benefit of training, education, 
and environment, and who are possessed therefore of that general human 
excellence which was called dper-^ ; the KaKot are persons of the lower classes, 
inferior in all points of human excellence. The dyaOoL are the ^lite ; the 
KttKoi, the vulgar. dpeTrj<: in vs. 3 is not virtue or merely moral excellence, 
but rather that high development of the physical, mental, moral, and ces- 
thetic endowments which are included in the whole human complex. Such 
dpcTT], embracing the full measure of a man, is attainable only through birth 
and breeding in the first instance and personal endeavor besides. One of 
these sources is rarely suflScient without the other. Furthermore, dperrj is 
not for the poor and needy ; normally a competence, if not wealth, is neces- 
sary for its attainment. And yet dpery and wealth are not identical ; Solon 
himself is an example of a man who had one without the other. Wilamowitz 
(1893, II, p. 305) asserts : " Die dpery ist bereits die der seele, nicht die des 
blutes fiir ihn (Solon). Die moralische bedeutung der begriffe dyaOos und 
xa/cd? gilt bereits fiir Solon." This he says in order to justify the contention, 
which is probably true, that the poem was written in criticism of the timo- 
cratic constitution which prevailed in Athens. But it is unnecessary to 
insist that dperyj and dya06<; must refer to either birth or morality. The 
philosophic conception of virtue was still far in the futun; at Solon's time. 



214 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

On the other liand, there was probably a moral ingredient in the composition 
of apcTif] from the beginning. 

1. irivovrai : " are poor." Tlie word is not found in this sense in Homer 
and Hesiod, but it is common in Attic. 

1. ayaOol Se trivovTaL : subordinate in thought to ttoXXol TrkovTovcn 
KaKOL ; avroLcr' in the next line refers to kukol. 

'2 f. Cf. Plato Laws 728 a : ttS? yap 6 r iirl yr}? kol vtto y^s )(pva6<; 
apeTrj<; ovk dvra^tos. 

4. Cf. Eur. Electra 941-944 17 yap <^ucns ftifSaLo<;, ov ra xPVf^'''^' I V 
{xkv yap alel irapafxivova a'tpei KaKa' | 6 8' ok/So^ olSlKox; Kal fxcra (TKaLUiv 
ivviov I e^eTTTar' oikcdv, ajxiKpov av6rj(Ta<i yjpovov. 

XVIII 

It is difficult to say whence these two rather insignificant verses came or 
why Plutarch and his authorities saw fit to preserve them. The legend is 
preserved in several places (see Meyer, 1893, II, 568) that the laws of Za- 
leucus were directly inspired by Athena, in which case they might well have 
taken poetical form; and Hermippus (Athenaeus xiv 619 b) reports that 
the laws of Charondas were sung at banquets in Athens. The present lines, 
therefore, may have formed the introduction to a poetical version of some 
early code. But it is unlikely that Solon himself wrote them, because if he 
had written no more than this, it would have gone into the wastebasket ; if 
he had written his whole code in verse, we should have had fragments of it 
in that form. 

2. Tvxy}v ayaOriv : a common Attic formula, especially in the dative. 

2. KvBo^ oTrdaa-ai: a Homeric phrase; cf Hom. //. vii 205, viii 141, 
xii 255 ; Od. iii 57, etc. 

XIX 

Reference: Sitzler (1897). 

It is probable that the two couplets here quoted by Plutarch are derived 
from dittcrent poems and are brought together as evidence for Solon's scien- 
tific ideas. That it is unfair to deduce his ideas from them is manifest. 
The first couplet appears also in xiii, preserved by Diodorus, where it is fol- 
lowed by four other lines. The second couplet (xix) j)robably formed part 
of a longer passage in which Solon drew the coni])aris()ii In^tween the S?}iJLo<i 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 215 

and the sea, as in xiii he compares the strong men in a state to a storm 
cloud. Of. Frag, iamb adesp. 11 (H.-C.) : 8^/xos ao-rarov KaKov | koI 
6a\a.(Tay iravO OfJLolov vtt dvcfxav ptTrt^erat, | kol yaXrjvu^ it/v tv)(j, Trpos 
TTvevjxa ^pa)(v Kopvaacrat, | Ktjv Tts atr<,a yivrjTat, tov ttoXltyjv KareViti/. 
Herodotus vii 16 to, o-c kol d/xcfiOTepa irepL-^KOvTa dvOpiiiiruiv KaKtlv op-ikiai 
(r<f>d\\ov(n, KaTairep tyjv TrdvTwv )(^pr]aLixo)TdTr)V dvOpMiroKTi OdXaaaav Trvcrfxard 
(fiaaL ifXTTLTTTOVTa ov Trepiopdv <f>v(n rrj cwvTiy? ^prjaCaL. Polybius xi 29 66ev 
del TO TrapaTrXrjaLov Trddo<i crvp-l^aLvei irepi re toijs o'^Xov^ koX ttjv OdXarrav. 
KaOd-rrep ycap KaKetVr;? 17 p.lv iSta <f)v(n<; iarlv d/8Aa/5r/? to^<; ^pco/xeVot? kol (Trdm- 
fxcs, orav 8' et? avrrjv ifXTriarj rd Trvev/xara /Slo., Toiavrr) (f>aLveTaL rots ;^pa)/xcVot?, 
oloL Tii/e? av (5(711/ ol kvk\ovvt€^ avrrjv dve/xoL, tov avTov Tpoirov kol to irXrjOo'i 
du KOX (f>xLveTaL kxl ytyi/erat Trpo? TOv<i ^/3(jO/xcVov?, olov<; dv €)(rj TrpoaTdTa^ kol 
av/x^ovXoVi. Dionys. Hal. xvii 12 TrapaTrXrjaLov tl Trda^ova-Lv at SyjfxcKpa- 
Tovfxtvai 7r()Aei? rot? TreXdyecrtv' iKCLvd re yap vtto tojv dvefxwv rapctrrerat 
<f>vaLv exovTa rfpefieLV [sic], avTai 8e vtto Ttliv Srjfxayioy'ov KVKlvTai fxrjBkv iv 
avTaL<; exovaat KaKov. Cicero pro Ciuentio 49, 138 : Ex quo intelligi potuit 
id quod saepe dictum est : ut mare, quod natura sua tranquillum sit, ventorum 
vi agitari atque turbari, sic populum Romanum sua sponte esse placatum, 
hominum seditiosorum vocibus, ut violentissiniis tempestatibus concitari. 
2. StKatoTotTry : " well-regulated," " law-abiding." 

XX 

References: Dummler (1894), Leutsch (1872). 

For the circumstances of the composition of this poem see pages 39 ff. 
There is probably no special significance in the opening words, which should 
not be taken literally. If Solon had really been a herald, he certainly would 
not have made his pi'oclamation in verse. He is a herald only in a figura- 
tive sense, intending to accomplish through his poem the same kind of result 
that a herald would have accomplished through his spoken proclamation. As 
a herald comes from a city which is in danger and distress to implore the 
aid of a neighboring city and delivers his plea before the assembled citizens, 
so Solon makes himself the champion of imperiled Salamis and pleads her 
cause in verse. The suspicions of Leutsch (1872, p. 137) concerning the 
authenticity of this couplet are sufficiently answered by this interpretation. 

2. Koa-fMov iireoiv : a literary composition, in whiclj art governs the choice 
and combination of words; here the object of ^e'/xei/o^ (= Trot-qaas). Cf Thuc. 



216 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

iii 67 XoyoL iirecn KOCTfjirjOiVTeq ; Pind. 01. 11, 14 Koafxov . . . dSv/xe\rj 
K€\aSi]crii} ; Pliiletas of Cos, 8, 3 (Schneidewin) dA.A' cTreW eiStb? Koafxov koI 
iroWa ixoyrjaa<i | fjivOwv iravTOiuiv ol/xov iTrLcrTdjJievo^. 

2. ioSrjv : a poem to be sung, here used in apposition to Koa-fxov iireoiv. 

2. ayoprjs : a speech ; this meaning is rare, but it is found in Hom. II. 
ii 788. 

XXI-XXII 

References: Hiller (1886); Mekler (1895) ; Piatt (1896) ; Shorey (1911) ; 
Sitzler (1879, 1900) ; Wilamowitz (1893). 

XXI and xxii almost certainly belong to the same poem, from which 
also viii is possibly drawn. For the circumstances see pp. 56 ff. 

XXI 

2. a/JLetXixov : cf. Semonides vii 35 (H.-C) d/xctA.t;(os 8c Tracrt KOLTroOv^i-q I 
i^Opoiaiv l(Ta Kol cf)LXoL(Ti yiyveTai. 

3. Karatcr^wa? KX€0<i : cf. Eur. Ilel. 845 to TpioLKov yap ov KaraLcr^vvo) 

KXiO^i. 

3. There is some ditference of opinion about the interpretation of /xtam? 
Koi KaTaL(T)(yvas kX^os. What stain upon Solon's reputation is meant? 
Wilamowitz, followed by Bucherer, thinks that the stain is that which 
Solon's reputation actually incurred in the minds of the majority when he 
refused to seize the tyranny. The other view is that the stain was that 
which his reputation would have incurred if he had seized the tyranny. 
Wilamowitz claims that xxi and xxii belong to the same poem and that 
xxii precedes xxi ; the first line of xxii, then, seems to him to justify his in- 
terpretation of xxi 3. This is extremely improbable, for two reasons. 
(1) The participles /Aiams and aLa)(yva<s fall most naturally under the in- 
fluence of the negative ov, and therefore cannot be taken in Wilamowitz' sense. 
Bucherer tries to parry this argument by saying that the ov belongs closely 
to KaOrjipdprjv, making with it a single idea, " verschmahte " ; and by this he 
explains why we have ov and not ^rj. But ov is, of course, the proper nega- 
tive in this s(Mitence, which is not a conditional, but a causal or objective 
clause with alSevpat. For the idiom of the negative which is extended to 
the two participles, see Shorey (1911). (2) The words /oitam? and Karat- 
o-;(wa9 are far too strong, for even Solon's critics, to use of his failure to 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 217 

seize the tyranny, whereas they express exactly Solon's conception of the 
disgrace wliich would have fallen upon him through such an attempt. 
Humbert is right here as usual — "si je n'ai pas voulu, dans la crainte de 
flt^trir ma gloire, avoir recours h, la tyrannic," etc. Shorey points out that 
there is nothing in this fragment or the next to justify the interpretation 
that they are Solon's serious apology for not having seized and used the 
tyranny in the interests of either of the two political parties. The apology 
which they contain is not a political apology at all. "It is at the most 
the ironical apology of the higher morality to the lower morality of the man 
of the world — the apology of a Socrates to a Callicles (Plato, Gorg. 
522 d) " (Shorey). 

■i f. Solon here refuses to be judged by the ordinary standards of his 
day, and therefore feels no aiStos in disregarding them. He sets up a new 
moral principle not hitherto recognized, and, by acting in accordance with it, 
he justly claims superiority over the rest of the world, which has not yet 
recognized the principle. 

XXII 

Not only the thought of these lines, but the tone of the language as 
well, are characteristic of the common man {rov<i ttoAAoi;? koX cf)av\ovq, to use 
Plutarch's words). The last line in particular is distinctly Aristophanic. 

1. Cf. Soph. Ant. 79 TO 8c | ^ta TroAtrtov Bpav icfivv afX'Qxavo';. 

1. (3a6v<f>poiv: cf. Pind. ]\^em. vii 1 EiAet^ma, TrdpeSpe Motpav ^aOv- 
<f>p6v<i)v ; Aesch. Pers. 142 cfypovriSa KeSvrjv kol ^aOvfSovXov. 

1. (3ov\yeL<5 : a very rare word. 

3. Cf. Herod, i 141 ka/Selv ap.f^tjiX'qyTpov koI Trept/SaXelv re 7rX.rjOo<; 
TToXXov tC)v IxOvayv kol i^eipvaaL. 

3. cVtWao-ei/: "drew the net tight," as in Dem, xxiv 139 reOvrjKev 
€7rt(r7ra(7^ CI/T05 tov (3p6)(ov (of a death by hanging). 

4. Ovp,ov . . . KOL (f)p€vCjv : these qualities are thought of as necessary 
for one who would usurp the tyranny, not for a fisherman drawing in his 
net. 

4. a[xapTrj : " at the same time." 

5 ff. Cf. Eur. Phoen. 503 flf. eycb yap ovBev, p-yrep, aTroKpri/za? ipu)' \ 
a(TTpo)V av tXOoip! -^Xlov Trpo? dvroAas | kol yrj<; ivepOcv, Svvaro? wv Spacrat 
TaSe, I Tr]v Occov /xeytcrrr^v uxtt* €\€LV TvpavviSa. 



218 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

7. dcTKos ScBapOaL : cf. Aristoph. Clouds 439 fF. vvv ovv aTe)(yio^ 6 tl 
^ovXovTai TovTi Tovfxov aCjfx avToicnv Trapi^o), tvtttuv Tretvrjv Suf/rjv av)(^fx€tv 
pty^v acTKov BetpcLv ktX. ; Knights 370 Sepoj ae OvXukov kAott^s ; Plat. 
Euthyd. 285 d eycu fxiv, €<f>r), Koi avros, w ^(jjKpareq, ctoi/xos elfxt 7rap€)(eLv 
ifxavTov rois i€voL<;, koI iav (SovXayvrai Sepeiv en fxaXXov rj vvv Bepova-iv, et 
fxoL yj SopoL p-Tj eh dcTKov reXevTrjaei (^airep rj rov M.apavov, aXX' els aperrjv. 

7. e7rLTeTp2<f>0aL : evidently a word of the popiUar speech, not found in 
the earlier poets (though Sophocles has cTrtVptTTTos in Ajax 103), but 
common in Aristophanes. In SeSapOac Ka-jnTeTplf^Bai the perfect tense de- 
scribes the eternal state which tlie speaker is willing to accept in return for 
one brief day of glory. 

7. yeVos : subject of eTnTeTpl^Oai ; not, as Bucherer says, accusative of 
reference. 

XXIII 

Plutarch is here quoting parenthetically the second line of an elegiac 
couplet ; yap is not part of the verse, and epypxicn must have been epyp.amv. 
The occasion of the quotation is the description of the dissatisfaction and 
criticism wliich prevailed after the establishment of Solon's laws. Whether 
the line belongs to a poem which was composed at that time is uncertain ; 
the sentiment would harmonize well with that of vi. Bergk says that possibly 
the poem from which this line is quoted contained also Theogn. 801-804 : 
OvSd<s avOpo)7r(i)v ovt eaaerai ovre TrccfyvKfv, \ oaTts Tracnv dSiov SvaeraL eh 
AtSeco* I ovBe yap os OvrjToicn Koi a9avd oiaLv dvacro-ct, | Zevs Kpovt'STys, OvrjToh 
Trda-Lv dSeV Svmrai. But it seems certain that Solon would not have written 
verses of so cynical a strain. 

XXIV 

Eeferences : Koehler (1802) ; Sitzler (1897). 

See pages 95 tf. 

The lines refer probably to a sojourn in Naucratis as well as in Sais and 
other Egyptian cities. Koehler (1892, p. 345), indeed, feels so certain that 
Naucratis is referred to that he regards the verse as a proof that a Greek com- 
mercial settlement existed at Naucratis before tiie time of Amasis (569-526). 

Trpoxorja-L : used thus commonly in the plural of the mouth of a river ; 
cf. Hom. //. xvii 263 ; Od. v 453, etc. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 219 

XXV 

For Solon's visit to Philocyprus, king of Soli in the island of Cyprus, see 
pages 95 If. 

These lines formed a part, probably the close, of the poem referred to by 
Herodotus (v 113), in which Solon praised Philocyprus more highly than all 
other tyrants (ev e-n-eo-L atVecre Tvpavvoiv fxaXLO-To). With Solon's farewell to 
Philocyprus may be compared the farewell of Odysseus to Alcinous in Hom. 
Od. xiii 38 ff., where Odysseus, like Solon, bespeaks prosperity for his host 
and a safe return for himself: d/xu/xova 8' olkol olkoltlv | vocrrr/cra? evpoifxi 
(Tvv apT€}iU(Tcn (^IXoLfTLv. I v/ACt? S' avOi fxevovTCs iiJ cfypacvoLTC ywatKa? | kov- 
piSn^ Kal r€Kva' Oeol 8' dp^rrjv OTracretav | TravTOi-qv, kol jxrj tl KaKov /xcra- 
SrjixLov cl'r/. 

4. KuTrpt? lo(TTecfiavo<; : cf. Hom. Hymn vi 18 o^o^ Qavp.aZpvrf.'i loarecfydvov 
Kv^epetr/s ; Theogn. 1304 ovKerLSrjpov \ e^ets Kv7rpoyevov<; 8a)pov toare^avov. 

5. oLKLdixio: properly an abstract noun, "the founding of a settlement," 
here used for the settlement itself. The word is uncommon, but it is found 
in Plat. Laws 708 d TrdAecov oiKiapiOL. 

XXVI 

References: Blass (1888) ; Crusiiis (1895) ; Sitzler (1894). 

The reply to Mimnemus w^hich is here referred to has been preserved by 
Diogenes Laertius (see xxxvii), and most editors regard the two fragments as 
parts of the same poem. Some go even farther. Bergk remarked that vss. 
1069 f. in Theognis' collection — 

"A(f)pov€^ dvOpcoTTOt Kal vr)TTiOL, oXre dav6vTa<s 
K\aiov(T, ouS' r}8ri<^ dv6o<; aTroWvfjievov, — 

were probably written by Mimnernus ; Schneidewin pointed out that Solon's 
couplet may be a reply to them ; and Blass (1888, p. 742) thinks there 
is no doubt but that we have two complete poems, one by Mimnernus, 
consisting of Mimn. frag, vi (B.) and Theogn. 1069 f., the other by 
Solon, consisting of xxxvii and xxvi. I cannot accept this reconstruction. 
In the first place, Solon's lines are not really a reply to the lines in 
Theognis ; in the second place, they do not easily follow immediately after 
xxxvii. There is an air of epigrammatic finality in xxxvii, which will not 
tolerate the addition of such a sentiment as that expressed in xxvi. It 



220 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

seems to me not improbable that xxxvii formed the close of a longer poem 
addressed to Mimnenius and that xxvi is a quotation from the earlier portion 
of that poem. These lines attracted the attention of Cicero, who alludes" to 
them in two places. In the Tuscidan Disputations (i 49, 117) he trans- 
lates them into a Latin couplet : " Mors mea ne careat lacrimis, linquamus 
amicis | Maerorem, ut celebrent funera cum gemitu." In the Cato Major 
('20, 73) he compares them with a verse of Ennius in which the opposite sen- 
timent is expressed : " Solonis quidem sapientis est elegium, quo se negat 
velle suam mortem dolore amicorum et lamentis vacare. Volt, credo, se esse 
carum suis, sed baud scio an melius Ennius : ' Nemo me lacrumis decoret, 
neque funera fletu | Faxit.'" On this opinion of Cicero Nageotte (1888, 
p. 167) remarks: "II (i.e., Cicero) trouve plus de courage dans le Romain 
que dans le Grec. J'en suis fachd pour Cicdron, mais il n'a pas compris les 
vers de Solon. Solon ne se lamente pas du tout, comme il le croit, ?i I'id^e 
de la mort ; ce qu'il veut seulement, c'est que son souvenir soit cher ?i ses 
amis, que son depart les attriste. J'aime mieux ce besoin d'affection (jui se 
prolonge meme au-delk du tombeau, que le stoicisme un peu pedant 
d'Ennius." 

XXVII 

Allusion had been made by the previous speaker in Plutarch's dialogue 
to Solon's law forbidding intercourse between slaves and boys. 

1. rifi-q^ IpaTolcTLv iir avOeat : cf. Horn. //. xiii 484 kol 8' c^ei ■q/Srj'i 
avOo<;, o re Kp<xTO<i ecrrt fxiyicTTOv', Mimnernus 1, 4 17^7/? avOta ytyverat 
dpiraXea \ av8pd(riv r}Se yvvaL$iv; Tyrtaeus 10, 28 o<^p ipaTrj<; r)(ir)<i ayXaov 
a.vOo<i iXV''> Theogn. 1348 TraiSei'r;? av^o? e)(ovT epardv. 

XXVIII 

Reference : Gomperz (1880). 

oOev : this refers to the arguments which have been advanced by the 
speaker in s\ipport of his view that the love of men for women is a nobler 
thing than the love of men for boys. Devotion to wine, women, and song 
is not at the present day regarded as a characteristic of the calm of middle 
life, still less of advancing age {-wp^a^vTrj^) ; but to the Greek it was natural 
to believe that the gifts of Aphrodite, Dionysus, and the Muses were the 
decent i)leasures of the normal man. 

1. KvTrpoycvoCs : cf. KuVpt? XXV 4. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 221 

XXIX 

This line may have belonged to the same poem as xxx and xxxiii. See 
the note on xxxiii. 

tySiv : this word, which properly meant a " mortar," was also, according 
to Pollux (Joe. cit.), the name of a kind of dance (co-n fxev ovv tySt? koI 
opxweijDS (TxrjfJM), in which sense it was used by Antisthenes and probably 
also by Solon. 

XXX 

Phrynichus points out in the passage immediately preceding the quota- 
tion the impropriety of using the word orrpdyStAo? for either a pine nut or a 
pine tree, the proper words being ttltv: and ttltvos Kaprroq. " The words 
from Kttt yap to the end," says Rutherford, " may well be a spurious addition 
made by some one who happened to have heard kokkwv so used by the vulgar. 
The remark is awkwardly introduced, and contradicts to Se eScoSi/xoi/ 
TTLTvoiv KapTTos. Thcrc Is no reason for assigning to kokkwv in Solon's iambics 
the meaning of a-Tpo^iko^, ' the edible kernel of a pine cone.' " See note on 
xxxiii. 

XXXI 

1. yvo)(jLoavvr)s : a very rare derivative, formed from yvwfxoiv as o-cu^/oo- 
crvvrf is formed from (Tu)cf>p(iiv. It means " the ability to see and compre- 
hend." For yv<i)fJLoavvr]<s d^aves ix€Tpov, cf. aOavdroiv d<f)avr)<; v6o<s in xxxii. 

2. TrdvTcov iretpaT c^et - the meaning of TrcLpara here as in many other 
instances is uncertain. In Homer it has at least two well defined meanings, 
" ropes " or "cables," and " end " or " bounds " ; besides the passages where 
either one or the other of these is applicable, there are many others where 
there is room for doubt. In such a place as II. vii 102 avrap vrrepOe \ vtKr}<; 
TTupar exovTuL iv dOavdroicn OeoLcnv, it is not impossible that the poet was 
thinking of a figurative use of Tretpara in the sense of " ropes " ; the gods 
may hold the strings which control the course of human events. On the 
other hand, the word may mean here " the consummation " or " power of 
accomplishment," as t€Xo<s frequently does. Whichever figure lies at the 
back of this idiom, it is obvious that we have the same idiom in Archilochus 
52 (H.-C) vLKr}<^ 8' iv OeolcTL Treipara ; in Theogu. 1171 f. Vvw/JL-qv, Kvpve, 
Oeol OvrjTOiat OLSovaLv dpicTTOv | dv9p<JiTroi^' yvuifxri Trelpara TravTo<; €^€t ; and 



222 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

in the present passage in Solon. Now if we put by the side of these Hesiod 
W. and D. 669 Iv to?? yap [^e., kv to2<; ^eot?] re'Aos iarlv o/aw? ayaOiou re 
KUKtuv re, and Semonides 1, 1 f. TiXo<i fjiev Zei;? i^ei fiapvKTviro^ | Trdvrojv oa 
i(TTL, it seems fair to assume that irupara c^etv with tlie genitive is equiva- 
lent to reA-os txuv with the genitive and that both mean " to possess the 
power of bringing to fulfillment," "to be sovereign over." This conclusion 
is corroborated by Soph. frag. dub. 1028 (ap. Clem. Strom. V xiv 128, 2) 
ovSc ^eoi? avOaipcra iravTa TreXovTai, | v6cr<f}L Aids* Keti/o? yap t^ct reXos rfSe 
Koi ap)(7]v, in which not only consummation but also initiation is ascribed to 
Zeus. Furthermore, reAo? €X"^ came to have a political sense, "to be en- 
dowed with plenary powers," as in the treaty quoted by Thuc. iv 1 18. If we 
conclude, then, that Tretpar tx^tv means " to be sovereign over," whatever may 
have been the origin of the use, there is still another question to be raised. 
The subject of c^^' is not personal ; o is a neuter pronoun whose antecedent 
is fxirpov. We may say, of course, that the real subject is yvtu/xoo-wT^? fxer- 
pov, or, going one step farther back, God himself, who possesses yv(Dfxoavvr)<; 
d<f>avh fxerpov. This is probably true. But can we suppose that Solon was 
unaware of the suggestive relationship between the words p^irpov and 
TTct/ottTa? We shall not be accusing Solon of a philosophical abstraction, 
nor do we need to impute to him any of the doctrines of the later schools, if 
we insist that there hovered before his mind the very concrete figure of the 
infinite wisdom of God containing and comprehending within itself all things 
of finite dimensions. This figure, however, is only an overtone, I believe, 
enriching the familiar idiom which is employed. The lines quoted above 
from Theognis give a curious twist to the thought and the language of 
Solon's couplet. Theognis makes human wit supreme, though he deigns to 
acknowledge that this wit is the gift of heaven. The difference between 
these two couplets is typical of the difference in the philosophy of the two 
men. 

XXXII 

The lines of Hesiod which are here referred to are quoted by Clement 
immediately before the present passage (Hesiod }f('l.(iiiij)0(lie, frag, clxix 
Rzach-) : p.dvTL<i 8' ovSets ianv iin^OovLOiv dvOpuiTrwv, | oariq ai/ eiSe'rj Zr}v6<: 
voov alyio^oLo. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 223 

XXXIII 

References: Hammer (1902) ; Sitzler (1894, 1907). 

It seems probable that this fragment and xxix and xxx belonged to the 
same poem. What the subject of it was, we can only conjecture. Hartung's 
suggestion that it was a satire on the gluttony of the rich is the most plaus- 
ible one. Crusius remarks that the present fragment recalls the fabulous 
world of pleasure and delight which tlie comic poets were fond of describing, 
and hazards the guess that Solon relegated to this world the ungrateful per- 
sons mentioned in x. Of Anacreon, frag. 13 (H.-C.) : rfpia-T-qa-a fxev l-ptov 
XeTTTOv /XLKphv dro/cAoi?, | oivov 8' i^iinov kolSov, vvv 8' d/J/jco? ipoeaaav 
I \f/lX\o) ttyjktlSi Tt] <fit Xj] Ku)fxd^(DV TTtttS' a^pj. 

1. irlvovai KOL TpMyovcnv : the regular phrase for a Greek symposium, 
when the banqueters drank their wine and ate with it sweetmeats, cakes, and 
bonbons of all kinds. Cf. Dem. Fals. Leg. 197 Tavrrjv to fikv 7rpC>Tov 
ovTwal tt'vclv yjo'v^'j koL Tpii)y€Lv r)vdyKat,ov ovtol ; Aristoph. Peace 1324 crvKo. 
re rpojyeiv ; Herodotus iv 143 opixrjfxevov Aapet'ov /ootds rpwycLv ; i 71 Trpoj 8e 
ovK o.Vo) 8ta;)(p€a)i/Tat [z.e., the primitive Persians], dXAd vSpoTroriova-L, ov 
avKa 8e e)(OvaL rptoyctv, ovk dXXo dyadov ovS'.v. 

1. trpia : one of the countless varieties of small cakes which were made 
by the Greeks. Cf. Athen. 646 d iVpiov 7re/i,/xdriov Actttov 8td o-vyo-d/ixov Koi 
yu,eAtTos yLvofievov. 

2. doTov : bread made of wheat flour. 

4. dcrcra yrj (fiipei : e.g., figs and pomegranates. 

XXXIV-XXXVIII 

No modem critical edition of Diogenes Laertius exists. The quotations 
have been made from Cobet's edition, and the textual notes have been 
supplied from the edition of Hiibner, from Bergk's Poetae Lyrici Graeci, 
and, for xxxvii, from Diels (1902, p. 480). 

XXXIV 

For the circumstances referred to in this and the following fragment, see 
pages 39 ff. These two fragments evidently belong to the poem called 
*'Salamis," from which xx also is derived. Lehmann-Haupt (1912, p. 19) 
says without any authority whatever that the poem closed with the couplet 
of xxxv. 



224 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

1. TOT : i.e., if we give up the attempt to recover Salamis. 

1. Pholegaiidros and Sicinos were two small islands south of Paros 
among the Cydades. 

2. avTi y 'AOrjvatov : ye is an indication of the scornful tone in which 
Solon would have uttered the name of the city which had disgraced itself. 

3. <f>dTL<i rjBe kt\. : " this remark would become current in the world." 

4. avyjp : with 'Attikos. 'Attlkos dvy/p is one predicate of ovto^;, and 
Twv '^aX.afxiva<j>cT(i)v is another. 

4. %a\aixLva<f>€Tu)v : a characteristic Greek compound, admirably con- 
ceived to signify the contempt which Athens would bring on herself Such 
catchwords, crystallizing the spirit of a party, are dangerous weapons of 
offense in political controversies. 

XXXV 

1. LOjjiev : the vowel of the stem (t) is lengthened under the ictus, as in 
Hom. 11. ii 440, ix 625, xii 328 ; in all these passages lofxev forms the 
first foot. 

1. Trepl vrjaov : cf. Tyrtaeus X 13 (F>.) : ^v/xaJ yrj<; irepl TrjaSe ixa^^oyfieOa 
Kttt Trept TratScoi/ | OvycrKiOfxev. 

2. ^(aAcTrdi/ T ato-;(o? dirioa-ofxtvoL : Demosthenes, speaking of Solon's 
success in rousing the Athenians to recover Salamis, paraphrases these words 
(Fals. Leg. 252) : koX Trjv p-lv \<jipav di/eVwcre ttJ TroXet, t^v 8' V7rdp)(ovaav 
al(T\vvY)v d7rrj\\a$€v. 

XXXVI 

References: Hiller (1883) ; Leutsch (1872) ; Zacher (1882). 

For the occasion on which these verses were supposed to have been 
uttered, see Appendix 7. They may belong to the same group of poems as 
xiii and xiv. 

1. Solon claims that the madness of which he is accused will shortly be 
revealed, insinuating thereby that when it is revealed it will be found to be 
not madness at all. 

1. d(TToi^: Leutsch (1872, p. 262) claims that the do-rot here are the 
nobles, evidently basing his opinion on the fact that the popular party sup- 
ported Pisistratus and might be supposed to be already accjuainted with his 
ambitions. But Zacher and Hiller insist that the darot are all the towns- 
folk, and they are certainly right. 

2. Conspirators have been deceiving the people and concealing the truth 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 225 

from them ; but when they put their plans into effect, the truth will come 
out of her hiding-place into the midst of the people where all can see her. 

2. €s /w-eVov : cf. Soph. Phil. 609 Siafxiov t dyuiv | I'Set^' 'A^^aiot? €s 
fji€aov, Oripav KaKrjv. 

Immediately after this couplet, Diogenes quotes the four lines of xiii 
with the assertion that they also relate to the usurpation of Pisistratus. 
Bergk thinks that the two fragments belong to the same period in the life of 
Solon, but that they are not derived from the same poem. 

XXXVII 

References : Dials (1902) ; Sitzler (1907). 

See the notes on xxvi. 

1. €t . . . Treiaeai: not equivalent to a condition with a subjunctive, 
but bearing the meaning, rather, of el c^cXets TrctOeaOai (see Goodwin, 
Moods and Tenses, 407) ; the av, therefore, of kolv probably has nothing to 
do with the verb, kolv throws its emphasis on vvv alone, "even now," 
"even at this late hour"; for which use the following passages may be 
compared: Aristoph. Acharn. 1021 fxerprja-ov dprjvr}^ tC ixot, kolv irivr €Trj; 
Clouds 1130 w(TT tcrtos jSovXyjaeTat | kolv iv Aiywrct) TV)(^lv wv fxaXXov y 
KplvaL KaXws ; Jjysistr*. 671 ei yap evSoocret Tt? rj[X(x>v ratcrSe Kav a-fiLKpav 
Xa^rjv ; Soph, Electra 1483 dAAa /xot Trapes | kov (rpuKpov elireiv. 

2. oTt (T€v TOLov €TT€.^pa(Tafxr)v I for the genitive crcv, cf. Xen. Mem. i 6, 1 ; 
Plat. Phaedo 89 a ; for the enclitic at the end of the first half of the 
pentameter, Theogn. 706 ; Mimn. 1, 2. 

2. Cf. Hom. Od. viii 94 'AXk/voos Be /jllv olo^ CTrec^pao-ar ' ^8' ivorjaev ; 
II. V 665 TO fxkv ov Tts iTrecfypdaar oti8' evorjcrf., | /xrjpov i^epvcraL 86pv jxetXivov. 

3. AiyvaaToiSr] : this complimentary epithet has been restored to the 
text by Bergk from Suidas s.v. Mt/xvepvo^ : AiyvpTidSov . . . iKaXeiro 8c 
Kttt Atyvao-Ta8>7S 8ta to ejU/xeXes koI r)Sv (Xiyv Bekker). Diels (p. 480) 
derives the word from Atyus and a8eti/, " a member of the family or guild of 
clear- voiced singers," comparing 2aAa/xii/a<^eTa)v and the comic compounds in 
Aristophanes ; but Sitzler, though he allows the word the same meaning, 
thinks a compound with a8eti/ impossible for Solon's time and derives it 
directly from \tyus. 

4. fxolpa KLx^L OavaTov : the same phrase appears in Callinus 1,15; 
Tyrtaeus 7, 2 ; and Theognis 340. Cf. also Solon xv 18 and xl 30. 



226 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

XXXVIII 

References: Diels (1889) ; Hiller (1878). 
Metrical scheme : 



1. 


\j\jZ^^\j/-\j\j/-\j\j — 




2. 


'^ \j /- \j \j /- \u \j /- 




3. 


Z._ 6 Kj ^ ^ w^_- 




4. 


jL\j\jZ-\j\j/-kj/- 




5. 


v^ ^Z. w ^ w -/ _ 





Flach (1884, p. 362) maintains that this fragment is authentic, but it 
is generally regarded as spurious, on the following grounds. For each one 
of the Seven Wise Men, Diogenes Laertius records the number of lines of 
poetry that he had written, the elegiac couplet which was inscribed on his 
grave, and a fragment of lyric verse composed by him. These three items 
are always given together (Thales, i 34 f. ; Solon, i 61 f. ; Chilon i 68, 71, 
73 ; Pittacus i 78 f. ; Bias, i 85 f. ; Cleobulus, i 89, 91, 93 ; Periander, i 
97. For Periander alone no lyric is preserved). In the case of Thales, 
Lobon of Argos is explicitly mentioned as the authority from whom they are 
derived. Now since the number of lines of poetry is demonstrably fictitious, 
most of the Seven Wise Men having written nothing at all, and since the 
epitaphs, being all cast in the same mold, are manifest forgeries, it is not 
unreasonable to conclude that the lyric fragments, too, were composed by 
Lobon or some other compiler from whom he borrowed them. For the 
whole matter, see Hiller. 

1. 7re<^vA.ay/xevo9 : cf. Hom. II. xxiii 343 dA.Aa, cf>i\os, (f>pove(i)V 7rtcf>v- 
Xayfxtvo<s elvat. avSpa €Kaa-TOv is the object of opa. 

3. 7rpoa-€V€7rr) : used without an accusative of the person addressed, as 
in Pind. Pyth. iv 97 KAeVrwi/ 8c Bv\x<^ Selfia Trpoo-eVi/CTre, and Aesch. Agam. 
241 Trpoaevviireiv OeXovaa. 

XXXIX 

Reference: Ileinemann (1897). 

For the relationship between Solon and Critias, see page 34. Aristotle 
{Rhet. i 15, 1375 b) quotes the first line of this couplet in the following con- 
nection (he is speaking of the employment of the poets as a source of his- 
torical evidence) : Kat KAeoc^on/ Kara Kptrtoi; r(yi^ 2oAa>vo5 eAeyetots iyji-qcraTO^ 
XiyiDV on rraXiLL dtrcAyry? y] olkm' ov yap av ttotc i-n-OLrjcrc 2oAa)j/ eiTrctv /xot 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 227 

KpiTta TTvppoTpLXL TTttTpo? oiKoveLv. It Is qulte clcap that the demagogue 
Cleophon is twisting the meaning of the words to suit his own purposes ; he 
takes them as a proof of the depravity of Critias, as Cope remarks in liis 
note on the passage, though they were really intended by the poet as a com- 
pliment to the father. That this is true may be seen from Plato's words in 
the Charmides 157 c r; re yap irarpcoa vfuv [i.e., Critias and Charmides] 

OLKia, rj KplTLOV TOV ApCOTTiSoV, Kol VTT AvaKp€OVTO<; /cat VTTO 2oAo>VO? Koi VTT 

a\Acov TToXXwv TTOLrjToJv lyK^Kiiip-Lao-fxivr) irapahihoTaL rjfjuv, ws Siac^epovaa 
KaAAet T€ KOL aperfj Koi rrj aWy Xcyojxevrf cv8ai/xovt'a. 

1. ei7re/u,evat : the grammatical construction cannot be determined, but 
as the fragment stands, the infinitive must be taken as equivalent to an im- 
perative. Of. Hom. II. vii 372 ff. -r^CcOev 8' 'iSiios trw KotAas cVt i/j}as | 
€t7re/xev ^ Kt p€:'chrj<i , 'Aya/xe/xvovt Kal MevC/iau), | /xvOov 'AAe^avS/aoio, tov etveKa 
vetK05 opiiipC I KoX Se t6^^ cnrip^evat ttvkivov €7roq ktA. 

2. ajjuapTLvoio : cf. Hesiod Theog. 511 apxiprLvoov t ^'Enrifxi^Oea; Aesch. 
Suppl. 542 tvd€.v 'lo) OLcrTpo) ipeaaofxeva KJjevya dfxapTLvoos. 

XL 

References : Clemm (1883) ; Croiset (1914) ; Daremberg (1869) ; Gom- 
perz (1880); Hense (1874); Hiller (1886, 1888); Larsen (1900); Van Leeuwen 
(1904) ; Von Leutsch (1872) ; Linder (1858) ; Murray (1889) ; Piatt (1896) ; 
Rost (1884) ; Schmidt (1847) ; Schneidewin (1848) ; Sitzler (1879, 1894, 1900) ; 
StadtmuUer (1882) ; Tucker (1887) ; Weil (1862) ; Wilamowitz (1893, 1913). 

See also pages 105 ff. 

1. Clement of Alexandria, who quotes the first verse of this poem, in- 
troduces the quotation with these words : SoAcov Trj<5 eAeyeta? dSe apx^rau 
This indicates that Solon's poem actually opened with the lines which are 
preserved in Stobaeus. The words rvjs eAeyeta?, standing as they do with- 
out explicit reference, might suggest that the present poem was known as 
the elegy of Solon par excellence. Immediately before the quotation from 
Solon Clement gives the following verse from Eumelus (frag. 16 Kinkel) : 
M^vr)ixo<jvvr}<; kol Zyjvo^ ^OXvjXTriov ivvea Kovpai. It is impossible to say 
whether Solon is imitating the epic poet, or whether the resemblance is 
accidental. At any rate, the same parentage of the Muses is well established 
in Hesiod: e.g., Theog. 52 ff. Mova-at 'OAv/A7rta8e?, Kovpai Atos alyioyoLo^ 
I TOLS cv Tiicpirf YLpovlhrj reKC irarpl /xtyetcra Mvr;/xocnVr; ; and 915 tf. M.vrjp.o- 



228 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

crvvT]<; 8' i^avTL<; ipdacraTO KaAAtKo/xoio, | e^ rj<; ol Movaat ^^pvca/XTrv/ce? c^cye- 
vovTO I ivv€a. 

1. dyAaa : a frequent epithet of children in Homer, as in //. ii 871, 
xviii 337 ; Od. xi 249. 

1 flf. The opening lines of this poem were parodied by the Cynic phi- 
losopher Crates in the following passage, which has been preserved by 
Julian (frag. 1 Bergk) : 

yivT) /jLOcrvvri'; teal ZT]Vo<i ^OXv/jlttlov ayXaa re/cva, 

'Mlovaat nie/3i8e9, k\vt6 /jlol ev')(^ofX6V(i)' 
')(^6pT0V i/JLrj avv€')((h<; Bore yao-Tepc, ijre /jlol aleC 

^a)/0t9 BovXocrvv7]<i Xltov edrj/ce ^lov. 

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 

ci)(f)€\L/jLov Se (f)i\ot^, jJLT] jXvKepop Tidere. 
'^p'qfjbaTa 8' ovk iOeXco avvdyeiv kXvtci, KavOdpov 6X/3ov 

/jLi>pfjLT]K6<; T a^evo^ ')(^pij/jLaTa /jLaiopLevo^;, 
aXXd SL/catoavv7]<; /jLere^ecv Koi itXovtov aylveiv 

ev(f>opov, evKTrjTOv^ tl/jllov et? apeTrjV. 
T(av Se TV^cbv 'Fip/JLr]V teal Moucra? IXdcrofx ayvd<^ 

ov Sarrdvai^; Tpv(f)€paL'^^ dXX' dperaU 6aLai<;. 

2 f. Solon prays the Muses to grant him oX^os and ayaOr] So^a, but the 
oX^os is to come from the gods and the So^a is to come from men. The 
latter contrast is a suggestive one : it is true that happiness and prosperity, 
on the one hand, are the gift of the gods, and a fair reputation, on the 
other hand, the gift of human society. But both these things Solon desires 
of the Muses. This would seem to indicate that the Muses will be the 
prime cause of Solon's happiness, the gods and society the proximate causes. 
Weil (1862, p. 2) calls attention to the fact that we have here the typical 
prayer of a wise man of Greece, equally removed from asceticism and ex- 
cess. He also points out that Euripides had this passage in mind when he 
was writing the portion of the lost F7rxktheus which has been preserved l)y 
Stobacus iii 3, 18 (frag. 362 N). Note especially vss. 11-13 : dStW? 8c 
/JLT] ktQ) )(^pr)iJuiT, Y)v ftovXrj TToXvv I xpovov fJicXdOpoL^ ifx/xeveiv' ra yap kukios | 
oLKOv<i iaeXOovT ovk €^€L aoiTrjpLuv. 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 229 

2. fxoL : for tlie dative cf. Hesiod Theog. 474 ot ^\ Ovyarpl f^iCXr} /xaAa 
/Acv kXvov rjS' iiriOovTO ; Theogn. 4 av Se/xoi kXvOl ; 13 ev^o/xevio yu,ot kXvBl. 

3. 7rpo9 OeCjv Sore : vf. Horn. Od. xi 302 tljjltjv Trpos Zrjvo<i exovre^ ; Pin- 
dar 0/. vii 90 (IGo) SlSol 8e /rot atSotav X^-P^^ I '^^^ '''®''"' «^'''^^' '^^^ ttoti ^cVoji/. 
If the words 7rp6? dv^pojTrwv Sd^'av t;(etv ayadrjv were not preceded by okftov 
7rp6<s d^mv, TTpo? avOpoiiTOiv would mean without question " in the eyes of 
men." But Trpos Otu)v certainly must mean " through the agency of the 
gods " ; therefore Trpos avdpoiirwv would probably have to the Greek ear the 
meaning " through the agency of men." 

5. yXvKvv : cf. Pindar Pyth. vi 52 ff. yXvKela Se <^pr]v \ kol av/jLTroTaiaiv 
o/xiXelv I /AcXtcrcrai' d/xei^erat rprjTov ttovov. 

5. oiSe: i.e., oA/?ios kol ev8ogo<s wv. 

6. al8o2ov . . . Seivov : four times in Homer these two adjectives are 
joined to qualify the same noun: in II. iii 172 aiSotog tc (xol iaa-L, <^tXc 
€Kvp€, Setvos re ; xviii 394 •:7 pet v6 jjlol Selv^ re koL alSotrf 6c6<s evSov ; Od. 
viii 22 oj? Kcv ^atyKeaat cfiiXos Trdvreo-o-t yevotro | 8etvo5 r' aiSo26^ re ; xiv 
234 Setvds T atSotds re /xera Kpr^recrcrt reTvyp-rjv. It seems fairly certain 
that in the present passage Solon has the familiar phrase in mind and that 
he is endeavoring to draw a distinction between the two words and to define 
them with more precision. 

7. /xev is logically placed : the positive desire for money is contrasted 
with the unwillingness to enjoy ill-gotten gains (t/xctpto /xev . . . dSt'/cw? Sk 
ov). 

7 ff. Similar ideas are expressed by Hesiod W. and £>. 322 ff". and 
Theognis 197 ff. 

8. rjXOe : gnomic aorist. 

9. oV . . . 8a)(7t : dv is omitted in accordance with the regular Homeric 
practice in general conditional sentences. 

9. Trapayt-yvcTttt : cf. Theogn. 139 ovoe tu) avOpoiirwv TrapayiyveraL, ocra 
iOeXrjcnv. 

9 ff. Cf. Hesiod W. and i). 320 ;(p7;/xaTa 8' ov^ dpTraKTa, OeoaSora iroX- 
Xov ap.dv(ii ; Pindar Nem. viii 1 7 a-vv O^io yap tol (fyvrevOeU oX/^os avOpoi- 
TToia-L Trap/aovwrepos ; Pindar Pi/th. v 4 ; Eur. Electra 943, Ion 378, frag. 
354 N. 

11. fxaCoivTat: the manuscript reading TLfida-Lv is generally admitted to 
be meaningless here ; but no explanation is offered for its presence in the 



230 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

text, and no really satisfactory emendation is proposed. One cireumstance 
leads me to think that the word may perhaps belong where it is, bearing a 
meaning which has not yet been recognized : Euripides clearly had the 
present passage in mind when he WTote frag. 354 (quoted above). But 
TLfxav is not, after all, used by Euripides in any unusual sense and does not 
offer any real proof that Tt/xwo-tv is right in Solon's line. There is a 
clearly marked contrast between 6V /xkv SCjm deot in vs. 9 and oV 8' avBpes 
Tt/xcoo-ti/ in vs. 11. The contrast is further emphasized by the j)hrases 
v(f v/3pLo<; and ov Kara Kocr/xov, which both describe a process exactly the 
reverse of that indicated by the words 6V /xev Suxtl Oeoi. Furthermore, in vss. 
1 1 f. we see wealth figuratively represented as following reluctantly those 
whose methods are dishonest. We need some word which will harmonize 
with this situation. Ahrens' conjecture /xcrtojo-iv has met with the most 
favor, being adopted by Hartung, Hiller-Crusius, and Buchholtz-Peppmiiller. 
Other conjectures are 8t<^ct>crtv (Emperius), o-vAojo-tv (Linder), KTirawaiv 
(Weil), TeTfjLwaiv (Sitzlei), ixojuyaLv (Bergk), tlvw(tlv (Tucker, "but the 
money which men pai/ under tyrannous compulsion ''). Stadtmiiller refers 
to Leutsch's emendation, dva/wcrtv for tlixIjo-lv, and says he does not 
know why he did not prefer awdyoa-Lv which is found in Crates i 5. 
Stadtmiiller himself proposes klvo)(tiv, because (1) Solon himself (xii 12) 
shows tliat the kind of wealth which must be most avoided is the property of 
sacred shrines or of the state; (2) klvclv is the regular word for tampering 
with such moneys (Thuc. vi 70; ii 24; i 143). The reading adopted in 
the text is my own conjecture and was suggested by vs. 7 of Crates' parody, 
which is quoted in the note on vs. 1. Nothing is more likely than that 
Crates should have taken this word from Solon's poem, and no word could 
be more appropriate in the present place. 

11. ov Kttxa Koafxoi/ : a Homeric phrase. Solon uses it here to mean " ir- 
regularly," " unnaturally," " contrary to the regular course of nature." Such 
a procedure is likely to weaken the fabric of things ; orderly and regular 
methods, on tlie other hand, produce a structure compact and solid iK vearou 

12. Bucherer observes that the poet represents wealth as a person vir- 
tuous at bottom, who is misled by wicked men and follows them against his 
will. 

13. dva/xtcryeTat : the personification of the preceding lines continues,, 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 231 

Avheii ttAouto? follows a man reluctantly, it is not long before olttj "joins 
the party." The true meaning of the verb in this passage is indicated 
by Dem. liv 8 /cat totjtoi? TreptTvy^^dvofxev. a>? 8' avcfiu-^O-qfxtv, ets /uev avTwv, 
a.yvili<i TL<;, ktX. — two groups of persons unite. Cf. also Herodotus : 199 
oi-K d$uvfjL€vaL avafMLcryeaOaL ttjctl oXXrjaL, " refusing to associate with the 
others." 

13. aTY} : the nominative, which has less manuscript authority, is the 
reading of Hartung, Bergk, Hiller-Crusius, and Buchholtz-Peppmiiller. 
Hense prefers the dative. The nominative is better, because, as is shown 
by the quotations given above, avaixtayeaOaL is properly used of joining a 
group. In the present instance the group consists of t<Z ttAovto) and tco 
irXovacio, and ar-q is naturally taken as the subject. 

14. I.e., i$ oXcyov yiyverat r) r^s arrj<i dpx^ ojairep kol rj tov Trvpos. 

15. <i>Xavpr], dvi-qpr] : agree with oltt; understood, any, mild and gentle 
at the start, leads to v(3pLo<; tpya ; vfipio^i tpya bring the punishment of 
heaven ; therefore dr-q is dvi-qprj in the end. 

16. hrjv. almost exclusively an epic word ; also found in one line which 
appears twice in Theognis (597, 1243). 

17. TTOLVToiv c(f}op'x TeXos I cf. Soph. Electra 175 €Ti /xe'ya? ovpav(o \ Zev^, 
o? ifpopji TrdvTa kol Kparvvu. Zeus does not fail to observe all that happens 
upon the earth, but he sees all things in their proper relations ; and he 
waits till the sequence of events is closed before interfeiing to adjust the 
wrong (see vss. 25-28). 

17. iiaTrivr]<; : wind and justice come alike unexpectedly. 

20. 7rvpo<f>6pov : a familiar epithet; cf. xvi 2 and Hom. //. xii 314; 
Od. iii 495 ; Theogn. 988. 

21. Since the home of the gods has been concealed by clouds from the 
eyes of men, and since the boisterous effect of the wind is first seen upon 
land and sea, it is natural to represent the wind as rising upon the earth and 
making its way upward, dispersing the clouds in its path, till it comes to 
heaven itself. Wilamowitz (1913, p. 264) remarks: "Der Sturm kommt 
aus der Tiefe : denn nach allgemein griechischer Vorstellung wehen ja die 
Winde im Erdinnern (Tvcja-^ios ewat)." But I doubt if this conception was 
so common that we can assume that it was in Solon's mind here. 

23. ^eXtoLo ix€vo<: : see note on xiii 1. 

27. atet . . . Sta/ATrepcs : a familiar combination in Homer and therefore 



232 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

to be taken together ; cf. Horn. //. xv 70 €k tov 8' av tol tirura iraXioi^iv 
napa vrjwv \ aiev iyu) TevxoLfiL Sta/xTrepc's. ov negatives the meaning of the 
verb, not the predication. The adverbial phrase modifies the afiirmative 
which is produced by the double negative ov \e\r)Oe. 

27. \e\-qOe : this perfect is not found in Homer but later became com- 
mon. It appears in Semonides vii 9 (H.-C.) : rrjv 8' i$ dkLrprjs Oco'i Wtjk 
dA.o)7r€KOs I ywatKa, Trai/rwi/ IhpLv' ov8e /xtv KaKuiv XiXrjOev ovSkv ovSk tmv 
dp,€Lv6vo)v ; Theogn. 121 eiSk <f>t Xov v6o^ dvSp6<; ivl ari^dea-aL XeX-jOrj \ i/^vSpo? 
ctuv. In meaning it is not to be distinguished from the present. 

27. dXiTpov : cf. the passage from Semonides just quoted. 

28. cs TeXos : cf. Soph. Phil. 409 c^otSa ydp viv Travros av Xoyov KaKOv 
I yXijiaarf dtyovra Koi Travov/aytas, d<^' rys | p.r)Sev ScKaiov e? TiXo<i /xeAAot 

TTOetV. 

29. dl 8e <j>vya}(nv : it is not necessary to change this to el 8e <f>vy(i)aiv 
as most of the editors do. After 6 p,€v and 6 8e the poet would be led by 
the sound to write dl 8e even though ot is relative and not demonstrative. 
The fact that no grammatical antecedent for ot appears in vs. 31 offers only 
a slight anacoluthon. 

30. /u-oipa . . . KLxi] '■ see note on xxxvii 4. 

31. epya Ttvovacv : tlvclv is used with the accusative of the thing atoned 
for in Hom. II. 142 rtcretav Aavaot e/xa SaKpva adlaL /SeXeaacv ; and Od. 
xxiv 352 d CTCov p.vqcnrjpes dTacrdaXov v(3pLv trtcrav. In the verb rivav 
the t is regularly long in epic, but short in Attic. 

31. dvaLTLOL ktX. : if the text is sound, the expression is awkward but 
not impossible, epya, standing alone without a modifier, can hardly mean 
" their guilty deeds." Feeling, therefore, that epya is incomplete, the 
reader waits for a complement and finds it in tovtwv, which, in spite of the 
strong attraction of TratSes, must be taken with epya. This interpretation 
makes it unnecessary to resort to emendation. 

32. Cf. Tyrtaeus xii 30 (Bergk) : /cat TratScuv TraiSe? Kai yeVos iioTTtaw ; 
Hom. Od. xiii 144 crot 8' ia-rl kol c^oTrtcro) TLcn<i aiet. 

33 ff". With this whole passage compare the following fragment of Si- 
monides (85 Bergk; 69 H.-C), which Wilamowitz (1913, p. 273) thinks 
is by Semonides : 

ev he TO /cdXXtarov Xt09 eeiirev avijp' 
'oLTj irep (f>vXX(ov <yever)., toltj Se fcal avSpojv.^ 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 233 

Travpot fxijv Ov7]T(*)v ovaac Be^dfievoL 
<TT6pvoi<^ eyKaredevTO' ird peart jdp iXirU eKaara^ 

avSp&v 7]T€ vecov arr^deatv i/jLcfiveTai. 
6v7]T(x)V 8' 6(f)pa Tt? dv6o<^ €')(r) TToXvrjparov r)^r)^y 

KOV(f)OV e^wy 6v/jiov 7roX,V areXecrra voel' 
0VT6 yap iXTTiS' e^et jTjpacre/JLev ovre 6avela6aLf 

ovS' vyLr)<; orav y, (ppovriS' €')(eL Ka/JLarov. 
vijiTiOL, oh ravrr) KelraL v6o<^, ovSe taaaiv 

0)9 ')^p6vo<=; eaO' 7]/37]<; Kal /3l6tol' 0X1709 
Ovr}Tol^- dXXa crv ravra jjiaOoov ^lotov ttotI repfxa 

'^^XV "^^^ aya6(ov tXtjOl ')(^apLt,6fxevo<^. 
34. This verse otters the chief textual difficulty in the poem and Hense 
marks it as a locus desperatus. Many methods of restoring it have been 
proposed : for the meaningless €s 8r]vr)v, Ahrens suggested evOrjvelv, Hartung 
evOevieiv, Bergk SrjveveLv or eV Srjetv, Hermann alvdv r}V, Schneidewin ev 
puv cI?, Linder tj^uv yjv, Valckenaer -^v^avev rjv, Emperius kSy^v els aiirov, 
Rost €v (T)(T^aeLv avrots, Tucker ev Syj e)(€Lv avro^, Murray Ivhvcuv avrd? 
(" indigere sibi videtur"), Riedy ets avih-qv aurd?, van Leeuwen 8uvqv et' av- 
rov, Leutsch evSetVT^v (cf. eriSta), eV 8' rj^CLv avT<^ Sd^av €.Ka<TTO<i t'x^t- The 
favorite emendation, which has been adopted by Hiller-Crusius and Buch- 
holtz-Peppmiiller, is that of Buecheler : ev ^uvtjv, " every man holds a high 
opinion of himself." Reasons why this is unsatisfactory will be offered 
shortly. First let us consider the movement of thought and the grammati- 
cal relations in the three lines. (1) ayaOoq and KaKos are in the singular 
number, whereas if they were to be taken closely with voe9/xev they would 
naturally be in the plural. It is probable, therefore, that they belong 
rather with the distributive cKao-ros and that the second half of vs. 33 is 
closely connected with vs. 34. (2) The phrase ho^av ex^iv means properly 
"have a reputation," not "have an opinion." Bergk claims that it is 
equivalent to Sokclv and may bear either meaning. This may be true ; but 
it is not certain that the meaning " have an opinion" is possible and there- 
fore it is less likely to be right here. Compare vs. 4 above. (3) The whole 
of the second half of the poem (excepting the two doubtful lines 39 f.) is 
occupied with an account of the vain eflfbrts of men to mold their own des- 
tiny. Undoubtedly an exaggerated estimate of their own powers accom- 



234 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

pnnies their efforts. But, as I said, men's misapprehension of the truth 
about themselves is not mentioned elsewhere except in the one doubtful 
passage. It will be sesn that none of the requirements implied in these 
considerations is met by Buecheler's emendation. Furthermore, it seems to 
me highly improbable that Setviji/ could be used with the sense which is here in- 
tended. The reading which I have adopted in the text seems to me to satisfy 
all conditions. Ixetv depends upon voev/xev (cf. Linder, p. 503 : " Accedit ser- 
monis error his coniecturis omnibus communis, modum finitum dico {t^u) 
post (SSe vocvixcv. Nam quum dictum sit, wSe voev/xev {sic sentimus), expecta- 
tur infinitivus, quo id enuncietur et uberius explicetur, quod per particulam 
w8e ante significatum est.") ; the participle ci/TctVwv, preceding c^ctv and 
agreeing with its subject, bears greater emphasis than the infinitive, according 
to the familiar Greek idiom ; and avTo^; is taken closely with cvretVwv. wSe 
refers to a thing which is implicit in the earlier part of the poem, namely 
the disposition of men to disregard the all-seeing eye of Zeus and to 
forget that they cannot really be masters of tlieir own destiny, voev/xev 
with the infinitive means " we intend " ; cf. Hom. II. xxii 235 koX 
fiaXXov void) (f>p€(TL TLfxi^aaaOaLy and xxiv 560 vo€w 8e kol atiro? | "EiKTopd 
rot Xvaai. The words o/xcos aya06<; re kukos re mark the transition 
to the larger theme which is dealt with in the succeeding part of 
the poem. The subject up to this point has been the inevitable ret- 
ribution which comes upon the evil-doer though he may be oblivious 
and feel himself secure. Now the poet expands his law to include all 
men, good and bad alike, and makes it read : No man knows what the 
future may hold nor can he affect his destiny in any important way ; 
his hopes are vain and spring from his ignorance of the impotence 
of man and the omnipotence of God. eVreti/toj/ means "straining every 
nerve"; cf. Eur. Orestes 698 et S" riav)((i)s n? avrov ^vtclvovti fxev \ ^'i^^*' 
VTTCLKOL Katpov ev\a/3ovfX€vo<;, | lo-w? av eKTrvevacLCv. So^av t;(£tv means 
"have a name," "be somebody " ; cf. vs. 4. 

35. Cf. Soph. Ant. 615 ff. d yap 8r) 7roXv7rkayKTo<; cAttis ttoAAois fxkv 
ova(n5 dvS/Jtov, ttoXAoT? 8' (XTrdra Kov<^oi/oa>v ipoiTuiv. 

36. x^io-'^ovre? : a somewhat coarse word, more appropriate to iambic 
poetry ; it suggests silliness and stupidity, as well as open-mouthed antici- 
pation ; cf. xiv 6. 

36. KoixjiaL^ eXTTtW: " idle dreams of the future." 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 235 

37. apyaXerja-L : a standing epithet of vovo-ol (Horn. //. xiii 667 ; Hesiod 
W. and D. 92, Scuf. 43). 

38. Karecfipda-aTo : a rare word, not in Homer ; once in Hesiod ( W. and 
D. 248 (3 /8ao-tA^€5, v/xeis 8e KaTa<f>paZ,€(TOe kol avTol [ rijvBe StK-qv). It is 
evidently used by Solon with the same meaning as i<j>pd(raTo, " plan," " con- 
trive," with the object clause a>s iiyti)? Icrrat. And yet the hope of success 
that prompts the effort is ill-founded ; human effort will have little effect 
one way or the other. 

39 f. Bergk proposed to bracket this couplet as foreign to the thought 
of the context. He maintained that it was originally a marginal note on 
vs. 31 and was later introduced into the text. Hense does not bracket the 
lines. Most scholars agree with Bergk — Schneidewin, Hiller-Crusius, Buch- 
holtz-Peppmiiller. Linder retains the lines, but says they belong immediately 
after vs. 34 ; in order to make them fit this place he changes aAAo? to aAXws 
and Kttt KttAo? to kol 8k KaXos. The couplet is defended by Schmidt and Eost. 
The former discovers in the whole passage a train of thought which I cannot 
follow and which he himself does not pretend is possible without certain 
unjustifiable emendations. Host shows clearly by his analysis of the passage 
that the couplet is not impossible ; but he does not convince Hiller, who 
still maintains that though the lines are not absolutely impossible it is really 
better to remove them. Weil agrees that the lines are undesirable ; but his 
strophic arrangement would not suffer by their removal, because he would 
then indicate a lacuna after vs. 48, where it would afford a welcome relief 
to a somewhat strained situation. The objections to the couplet are apparent. 
Solon is speaking of kov<^l eA-TrtSes and he gives many concrete illustrations 
of them. These two lines alone refer to the mistakes which men make, not 
about the future, but about the actual state of affairs in the present. They 
are true and characteristic of Greek thought ; but they are not entirely in 
place in the present passage. In spite of all this I cannot convince myself 
that they should be bracketed. The texture of the whole poem is very 
loosely woven, and it is not at all impossible that Solon himself, quite as 
well as an interpolator, should have introduced them into the composition. 

41. Cf. Mimn. ii 12 Trevtr;? 8' tpy oSvvrjpa TreAei. 

43. o-7r€v8ei 8' aAAo^ev aAAo? : human effort springs from various causes 
and follows various paths. 

45. IxOvoevT : a Homeric epithet quite unworthy of the important place 



236 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

it occupies, unless it is intended to suggest the dangers to which sailors are 
exposed from man-eating fish ! This meaning of the word is denied by 
Ebeling for Homer, having been suggested by Goebel (see Ebeling, Lex. 
Horn. s. v.). Tucker also feels that the word is " quite out of place " (mean- 
ing, I .su])pose, " inappropriate ") and thinks that it is probably a corruption 
from IvQa Kol €vO\ This is very ingenious and I am almost persuaded to 
adopt it in the text. Leutsch thinks the word is given its prominent posi- 
tion to indicate that the people referred to are not traders but fishermen. 
Wilamowitz (1913, p. 261) remarks: " Dass das leere homerische Epi- 
theton l^Ovoevra so nachklappt, dass der Pentameter, der auch entbehrlich 
ist, ganz iibersprungen wird, ist das starkste Zeichen davon, dass Solon die 
fremde Technik doch nicht beherrscht." 

46. <j>€LS(oXyv : once in Homer {11. xxii 244 fxrjSi n Sovpwv \ ea-ra) <^€t- 
SoiXyj). For <f>a8o)Xr]V 6eix€vo<s cf. Hom. Od. 1 116 aKeSaaiv OcLvai', Soph. 
AJax 13 (TTTovhrjv Wov tyjv^ ; Antig. 151 twv vvv OiaOai X-qcrixoavvav] Eur. 
Med. 66 (Tiy-qv . . . TcuvSe Orjao/xaL irepL. 

47. y^vT€fivo)v : this phrase almost invariably means "destroy the trees 
and crops," and only two or three passages are quoted in which it means 
"cultivate the soil," as it does here; e.g., Hom, //. xiii 707 re'/xei 8e re 
Te'Acrov apovp7]<: ; Aesch. frag. 196 tv out aporpov ovre yarop^os \ rep^vec 8l- 
KeW apovpav. 

47. TroXvSevSpeov : with yrjv ; this word is used frequently in Hom. Od. 
xxiii and xxiv as an epithet of aypos, Odysseus' farm outside the town. In 
ancient agriculture there was no strict division into field and orchard. 

47. €19 ivLavTov : " throughout the year," " the year round " ; cf. Hom. 
II. xxi 444 6t 'Ayr/i/opt Aao/xeSovrt | Trap Atos iXOovre^ Orp'eva-afxev cis ivL' 
avTov I pl(tO<^ ewl pr}T<^. There is no adequate support for taking the phrase 
in the sense "year after year," "year in, year out." 

48. XarpeveL ; properly " work for hire," but probably Solon is not 
thinking only of laborers employed by others. He means rather to suggest 
the drudgery which is forced upon the farmer by his relentless occupation. 

48. TotaLv : the relative pronoun, its antecedent being aAAos ; cf. Plat. 
JRej). 554 a Av)(^ixr)p6<i ye tls, rjv 8' eyw, wv Koi aTro Travros TTCptovcriav ttolov- 
/aevo9, OrjaavpoTTOib'i avyp' ov<; Sr] kol CTratvet to 7rXrjOo<i. 

48. Kap-irvX' apoTpa : fiMind also in Hom. Hymn, to Dem. 308. 

48. Totcriv KapirvX' aporpa /xe'Aet : "plowmen," a generic term for 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 237 

farmers or husbamlineu. Their special task is to till the soil (y^v rt'/xvciv) 
whether with a plow or a spade or a hoe. It is not possible to discern two 
types of farm labor here, as some do — work in the orchard and work in the 
field (roto-tv being taken as demonstrative and equivalent to aAAot? 8e). 

49. Of. Honi. Od. vi 232 ws 8' ore rt? ^pvaov TrepL^everai dpyvpio avrjp 
I cSpLy, ov "H^ataro? SeSaev kol IlaAAas ^KBtjvy} \ re^vrjv TravTOLrjv, ^apUvra 
Sc €pya TcAecet. 

51. Cf. Archilochus frag, 1, 2 (H.-C.) koI Movcrtwv iparov Bwpov 
kTn<TTaix€.vo<i. 

51. ^vA/VtycTat /StoTov is to be understood as the predicate of aAAo? in 
vs. 51 as also of aAAos in vs. 50. "Natiirlich ist das eine Harte," says 
Wilamowitz, who first proposed this construction (1913, p. 261), "wieder 
ein Zeichen unvollkommener Technik." Bergk claims that cTrto-Ta/aeco? 
is equivalent to a finite verb (eTrto-Ta/uevds ia-TL or eTrto-Tarat) and justifies 
the construction by Hom. Od. xi 606 ; he thinks Trdpa is a corruption 
for an original <^tAa or KaAa but he prints Trdpa in his text. Hense 
thinks that the efforts to restore a finite verb have been futile, and 
mentions with approval the suggestion made to him personally by Erwin 
ivohde that a whole couplet has fallen out after eTrto-ra/xei/os. Linder 
keeps Movadoiv and removes irdpa as an intruded gloss. But it is hard to 
see how irdpa could be a gloss upon anything, and tlie rhytlim of the line 
oAAos 'OAv/xTriaSajv MovadiDv Swpa 8t8a;(^ets is objectionable. Various 
emendations have been off'ered : SiSdxOrj for StSa^^et's (Grotius), Aa/?e for 
Trdpa (Hermann), etc. Hartung's Se'SeKrat for St,8a)(0eL^ has much to recom- 
mend it. It supplies a finite verb and removes the awkward phrase 8u)pa 
8t8ax^ets ; and Hartung points out that 8t8ax^ets may be a gloss on 8aets in 
vs. 50. But we are not justified in resorting to emendation. 

52. ao<f>Lrj<i jxirpov. "the fullness of art." The English word "art," 
used without an attributive, frequently means the particular art of painting; 
similarly the Greek word cro0ta means the art of poetical and musical com- 
position. This meaning is not found in Homer or Hesiod ; but Theognis has 
it (770) : ■)(pr] Moi^creW Oepdirovra Kat ayyeAoi/, et rt TrepLaaov | elScLr], (TO(f>Lr]<: 
fxr] (^Oovepov TeXeOeiv. It is also common in Pindar (e.g., 01. i 1 20). The phrase 
cro4>tr]^ fxerpov appears also in Theogu. 876 Xi? 8' av iTraivyaai fxirpov ^x^^v 
aocfiLr}<; ; in a couplet which has been preserved in a fragment of Aristotle, and 
which has been unreasonably attributed to Pindar (Pindar frag. 328 Christ) : 



238 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Xatpe Sis rjfirjdwi koX Sts ra^ov avTi^oXycras, | 'Hcrt'oS', dv^pwTroi? ^lirpov c;((ov 
aocf>ui<; ; and again in a couplet which is inscribed on the Tabula Iliaca in 
the Capitoliue Museum w <f>L\e iral @coS]u)pr}ov /mdOe ra^tv 'Ofxrjpov, \ 6cf>pa 
BaeU 7rd(r7j<s jxirpov f-Xl^ cro<f>ta<i. There is a somewhat similar phrase in the 
couj)let which is assigned by Suidas to Pigres (s. v.) : Mrjviv aetS:, O^d, 
HrfXtjidSe ) 'A^tA^os, | Movara, av yap 7rd(Trj<i ircipaT €;(«<? ao<fi'.Tji. Homer 
has the phrase rj^rj's fxirpov a number of times (e.g., II. xi 225), and it is 
regarded as little more than a periphrasis for ■^(itj. Evidently /xerpov means 
something like "a definite amount"; not an incomplete or imperfect thing; 
a real whole, however small. 

54. cyvco : sc. 6 /xaj/rts. Though WttoXXwv is the grammatical subject 
of the j)receding sentence, fxdvnv is the most prominent word and readily 
becomes the grammatical subject of the new sentence. 

54 f. It should be observed that Solon does not question the ability of 
prophets to foretell the future ; but he maintains that such foreknowledge is 
powerless to thwart the course of fate. 

55. avvofxapTiqcTiiia-i : a very uncommon word and apparently without 
parallel in this figurative sense. The simple verb is used in a somewhat 
similar way by Euripides in Bacch. 923, where Dionysus says to the crazed 
Pentheus 6 ^eo? o/Aapret, irpoaOev wv ovk €v/a£v>/s, | €V(r7rov8os yiplv. There are 
probably two meanings intended here, one for Pentheus and the other for 
the audience. The audience understands the words to mean " the god is 
our companion," as indeed he was ; Pentheus understands them to mean 
"the god is favorable to us." The figure is a particularly happy one when 
it is applied to the inspiration of a prophet. 

56. TO. p-opcTLfxa pva-erai: this meaning of puso-^ai, "prevent," "hinder," 
is not common, but it is found in Hom. Od. xxiii 244 vv/cra fxlv iv irepdrq 
SoXL)(r)v a^Wcv, 'Hoi 8' avre | pvaar iw *D,KeavS ^pvrroOpovov; in Pindar 
Itith. viii (vii) 53 rai pnv pvovro irore ixd\a^ evaptp.fi porov \ Ipyov iv rreSita 
Kopvcraovra ; and in Thuc. v 63 (he promised) tpyw dya^co pvaeaOaL to.? 
amas crTpaT€vcrdp.evos. 

56. upd: "sacrificial victims," evidently used with the post-Homeric 
implication that omens were drawn from the internal organs. 

57 ff. Daremberg (1869, p. 8) has the following to say concerning the 
present passage : " C'est done parmi les metiers, ou, si Ton trouve le mot 
trop dur, parmi les arts que Solon range la mddecine ; loin de lui accordor 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 239 

une trhs grande puissance, il voudrait la soumettre h la decision aveugle du 
Destiu ou h, la volonte i)liis eclairee des dieiix ; il reserve meine une partie de 
sa confiance pour ces attouchements niagiques auxquels les ancieus attribu- 
aient tant d'officaciti dans la gui'Tison des maladies." 

57. naia>j/05 : nairycof, the Olympian physician, is mentioned three 
times by Homer (IL v. 401, 899 ; Od. iv 232), and in the Odyssey he is 
the progenitor of the race of physicians. He is not identical with Apollo in 
Homer, though in later times bis name becomes an epithet of Apollo. Cf 
also Pindar Pytli. iv 270 eo-at 8' larrjp i-n-LKatpOTaTO^, Ylaiav 8e crot ti/au! 
<f)do<i. 

57. Tro\v<j>apfxaKov : cf. Horn. //. xvi 28 IrjTpol 7roXv<f>dpfx.aKOL. 

58. IrjTpoi : predicate to dWou 

58. Ti\o<; : " control of the issues." 

58. Cf. Theogn. 660 Oeol ydp tol vzfXiaCj^r, 6i(tiv eTreari rsAos. 

60. kva-aiTo: the middle means "bring about their relief," i.e., through 
the medium of curative agents, rather than actually " relieve," which is the 
meaning of the active. 

61. Tov SI: substantive, as if t6v /u.ei/ had preceded. 

61. KVKuifxevov: this was emended to KaKovpievov by Lobeck in a note 
on Soph. Ajax 309. Hiller-Crusius and Buchholtz-Peppm idler print KaKov- 
/jtcvov without a comment. Hense retains KVKUipLtvov. There is no sufficient 
argument for the change ; and the last touch of certainty is given to tlie 
manuscript reading by a comparison of Archilochus frag. 62, 1 (H.-C) Ovpe, 
Bvp.y dp,ri)(dvoLaL Ki^Becnv KVK<i>p.eve. 

62. Cf. Aesch. Prom. 848 f. ivravOa hrj ae Zev? TtOrja-Lv €pi<f)pova [ 
€Tra<f>u)v drapfSu yupl kol Otyliv fxovov, and my discussion of the meaning of 
this passage in " Epaphos and the Egyptian Apis," Univ. Calif Publ. Class. 
Phil. II, 81 ff. 

64. A familiar sentiment, admirably expressed. The irony of Sw/oa 
di^vKra is thoroughly Greek. 

65-70. These lines reappear, with certain variants, in the corpus of 
Theognis, and Williams regards the Theognidean version as a popular re- 
vision of Solon's poem. He further remarks that "the verses in their 
original form (i.e., Solon's) are more in keeping with the views of Theognis 
himself." 

65. ovSc Tts oiScv ktX. : this idea is a commonplace in Greek literature. 



240 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

The closing anapests of Sophocles' Ajax may be quoted as a succinct expres- 
sion of it : y TToAAoL ySpoTOts ccrrtv iSovaii/ yvujvaf irplv iSelv 8' ovSeU ixdvTL<; 
Tu)v ixekX.6vT(DV, 6 TL Trpd^eL. 

66. fj fieWu axrjo-€Lv : there is difficulty in determining what idiom is 
employed here, and what is to be understood as the subject of /xeAAet. The 
possibilities are presented in the following passages : (1) Horn. 11. xvi 378 
nar/ooKAo? 8' rj TrAetcrrov opcvofxevov t8e Xaov, \ Trj p' e)( o/xoKAr^o-a? ; xxiii 
422 TYJ 'p' el^ev Mei/e'Aao? ; here ex^iv with an adverb like 17 or rrj means 
*' to direct one's chariot in a certain course"; (2) Horn. Od. ix 279 ottyj 
ea)(e<; . . . evepyea vrja ; Aristoph. Frogs 188 Xa/awv. ra^^eoo? efx/SaLve. 
Atovucros. TTOt a)(7)(T€LV SoKCLs ', c? KopaKa^ ovTiiis ', here vavv a^^tv or crxetv 
alone means "to land," "to touch at a certain point in a voyage," a common 
nautical expression; (3) Soph. Fhil. 1336 w; 8' 0180 ravra Tils' exovr eyw 
<f>pd(Toi ; Ajax 684 dAA' d/x^t /xev rovroio-tv ev ax/jaei ; here €;)(€ti/ is used in 
the familiar idiom with an adverb of manner. The first of these three may 
be immediately ruled out because it implies intentional direction of the 
course, an idea which is inappropriate in the present passage. The second 
idiom is the one generally accepted. Schneidewin significantly compares the 
passage from the Frogs; Bucherer paraphrases, " wohin er steuern, zu wel- 
chem Ziel er gelangen wird " ; Kynaston, " where they come to shore." 
Two things are to be said in favor of this interpretation : ^ is primarily an 
adverb of direction, giving the course to be followed ; and axw^*-^ i^ ^^^ 
aoristic future, corresponding to the very form (crxetv) which is used in the 
nautical phrase. But it seems extremely doubtful whether Solon would have 
used this nautical metaphor without making sure tlmt it would be under- 
stood ; there would have been some hint in the context to guide the reader's 
thought. As it is, there is none ; and the idiom of the type ovtcos 'ix^iv is 
too familiar to be gainsaid. Furthermore, the propriety of both the adverb 
rj and the aoristic axno-eLv is neatly proved by the two quotations from 
Sophocles. It is to be concluded, then, that Solon is using the same idiom 
which appears in the passage from the Ajax, the verb in each case being re- 
garded as impersonal. Cf. Herodotus i 32 (tkottUlv 8€ XPI ^ai/Tos XPVH^'''^'* 
TTjv TekevTrjv ktJ o.TTO^r)cr(.TaL. 

' 66. Gomperz thinks that the last word is wrong. An undertaking does 
not begin ; a man begins an undertaking. He would change dpxofj'^vov to 
dpxoiJi€vo<i referring to Soph. frag. 747 N. epyov 8e Travro? rjv ns dpxrjTat 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 241 

KoAws, I Kol Tas TeXevTa<; €lk6<; iaO' outws ^x^f-v. He seems to think the 

word (rxn(T€Lv refers to driving, " die Zligel imserer Hand entgleiten konnen." 

67. ov TTpovorjGa'i : " unawares," not "because he fails to use foresight." 

69. irtpl TravTtt : a common phrase in Solon, "in every regard" (xiii 6, 
XV 11). 

70. Ik\v(tlv a(f)po(Tvvr}<: : since a<f>poavvY) is the cause of arr], the removal 
of a<f>poavv7] prevents the development of arrj. Compare Christ's words to 
the man suffering from a physical disease : " Thy sins be forgiven thee." 

71-76. See pages 12 ff. 

71. Tcp/xa : the "goal" towards which men strive in the race for 
wealth. 

71. Trecfyaa fxivov : i.e., cf>av€p6v ; cf. Lysias x 19: "Oo-at Se 7rec/)ao-/xe- 
vco? TToXovvrai (quoted from the laws of Solon) . . . ro /mev 7r€^ao-/xeVa>s 
ccTTt cf>av€p(t><i , TToXelaOat Sk ^aSt'^etv. 

71. "In the pursuit of wealth there is no fixed goal visible from the 
start." The distant object of one's effort constantly recedes while one gives 
chase. 

71. Cf. Plut. de cupiditate divitiarum 4, 524 e : r^i/ h\ xpv^iKrjv iKuv-qv 
(i.e., ireviav, " imaginary poverty ") ovk av IfxirX-qcr^iav om-ai/res ovre ^ujvre? our' 
aTTodavovre.^. oOev ev tt/oos tovtov<; AeXeKxat vtto tov ^oAojvos 'ttXovtov 8* 
ovSkv ktX' 

72. I^iov : "means of living," " wealth." 

73. Tts av Kopicretev aTravras : "what amount of wealth would be 
sufficient to satisfy the greed of all ? " A reflection upon the appalling 
magnitude of the sum produced by uniting the desires of all individuals in 
the community. There is a full stop at the end of this line. The next 
three lines repeat in a brief and pointed manner the principle enunciated in 
vss. 11 if. 

74 f. Wealth does indeed come as a gift from the gods ; but it is not an 
unmixed blessing. Not infrequently the rich man is punished for his greed 
by Zeus who employs as his instrument the arrj which is bred out of the 
riches themselves. Such arr], whose chief symptom is a limitless lust for 
money, is infectious, and when one case appears in a community, it is certain 
that others will soon appear. Thus aXXore dXXos ex^t repeats the idea 
suggested by aTrai/ra? in vs. 73, that avarice is often epidemic. 

75. ii avTttiv : ck twv KcpBoiv. Some find the antecedent of avruiv in 



242 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

6vqTdla\ and claim that the pronoun is emphatic here : " good gifts come 
from the immortals," says Kynaston, " but mischief and infatuation from 
men's own willfulness." But the unemphatic position of the avTu>v, the ease 
with wliich it is referred to KepSea, and the statement which follows (yv 
oTTorav Zevs Tre/xxl/rj), all argue against this view. 

75. dva(f>aLV€TaL : cf. Hom. //. xi 174 rrj Si t Ifj dvac^atVertti aiTrvs 
6Xe0p6<;. 

76. aAAore aAAos : that this phrase is sound in spite of the hiatus is 
shown by xvii 4, Hom. Od. iv 236, Hesiod W. and D. 713, Theogn. 318, 
992. Cf. also Archilochus frag. 9, 7 (H.-C.) ^XXore 8' 5AAo? e^" ^^^e (*•«•. 
misfortune). 

ON THE STROPHIC STRUCTURE OF XL 

In 1862 Henri Weil pubhshed in a German periodical an article in 
which he claimed to have discovered in the longest of Solon's elegiac poems 
unmistakable evidence of strophic structure, and maintained that it was 
highly probable that other elegies, if they had survived, would show the 
same characteristics. In the present poem he discovers the following 
divisions : part I, consisting of vss. 1-32 ; part II, vss. 33-64 ; part III, 
vss. 65-76. It will be observed that the first two parts are of equal length, 
each consisting of 32 verses ; the third part, of 12 verses, is an epode. 
Furthermore, he discerns subdivisions within these parts. The first and 
second parts are composed each of four groups of four elegiac couplets ; the 
third part is composed of two groups of three couplets. 

Now the symmetry of this apparent structure is extremely attractive in 
itself and is recommended to the favor of scholars in an essay characterized 
by the author's usual grace. One is disposed at first to accept it unre- 
servedly. 

The first effect of Weil's discovery was an unfortunate one. If Weil 
could find a symmetrical structure in the poem, why should not another 
scholar discover another symmetrical structure therein, of a different kind ? 
This is what was done by von Leutsch in 1872. The German scholar 
begins by pointing out that there is no good reason why the divisions in the 
poem should be where Weil had found them : they could be placed equally 
well elsewhere. Then he proceeds to demonstrate at great length that the 
poem is really a vo/aos KiOapioSiKo^ with seven parts, of the type invented by 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 243 

Terpander. The absurdity of this suggestion will be apparent to any one 
who reads the argument of its erudite but stupid author, and has been re- 
jected with ridicule by all. 

Two years later, in 1874, Otto Hense came to the defense of Weil's 
scheme, but he really presented no new argument. He proposed an emen- 
dation (ttoBcI for SoKct in vs. 39) in order to save the couplet which was 
necessary for the symmetry, but which Weil, following Bergk, had been dis- 
posed to reject as spurious. 

Bergk, in his fourth edition (1882), rejected Weil's scheme, explicitly 
but without argument ; and Wilhelm Clemm, in an article published the next 
year, heartily approved of Bergk's decision. Clemm's reason for rejecting 
the plan was that Weil had not really divided the poem in the right places. 
The introductory prayer, for example, ends not with vs. 8, but with vs. 6 ; 
the second part consists of vss. 34-63, not 33-64 ; and the couplets of this 
second part may be readily grouped in other ways than that proposed by Weil. 

What are we to think of Weil's scheme 1 First of all, it has not been 
pointed out by any of these scholars that it is essentially improbable, I 
think I may say impossible, for any strophic arrangement in a Greek poem 
to be based primarily on divisions in the subject matter and its grammatical 
expression. Metrical structure is independent of subject matter and gram- 
mar, though, of course, not inharmonious with them. As for the divisions 
of the nome, we do not know on what principle they were made ; but it is 
almost certain that they were based upon musical, if not metrical form, and 
not upon the substance of the thought. This observation seems to me 
sufficient to convince us that there is no truth in the proposed scheme, that 
is, that Solon did not consciously produce the symmetrical arrangement 
which Weil saw and which we can see, like a picture in the flames, when 
Weil points it out. The true divisions of the poem, which are not always 
just as Weil constitutes them, correspond to the paragraphs in prose dis- 
course. No Greek could compose a poem without a certain architectonic 
sense which would produce a symmetry sometimes indefinable but always 
perceptible. But Greek metrical form is not so vague a thing as that : it 
is precise and unmistakable. The only metrical form in the present poem 
is that of the elegiac couplet. Croiset has shown, with fine critical insight, 
both the truth and the falsehood of Weil's theory. His statement leaves 
nothing more to be said. 



244 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

XLI 

The chapter in which Stobaeus records this fragment contains many 
other quotations from the poets in which the same melancholy view of hu- 
man life is expressed. Note especially Theogn. 167 f. "AAA' aAAo) kukov 
iaTL, TO 8' arpcKe? oA^to? ouSets | avOpiOTroiv ottoctov? lyeAto? KaOopa ; and 
441 ovhel^ yap ttolvt iarl 7ravdA)8tos. 

1. {xaKap<s : an Aeolic form which was restored by Stephanus in order 
to justify the long ultima ; the word is found in Alcman frag. 42 (H.-C). 
The quantity might be obtained by prolonging the liquid p, but in Homer 
this license is allowed only in cases where the final syllable of a word ending 
with a short vowel is made long before the initial liquid of the next word. 

XLII 

Reference: Clapp (1910). 

XmapYj : this adjective was a common epithet of Athens in the fifth cen- 
tury, and the Athenians took particular satisfaction in it. The first appear- 
ance of it in association with the name of Athens is in Pindar Isthm. ii 20 
rat? AiTTttpat? kv 'A^avat? ; and frag. 76 (Christ) w rat Xiir-apaX koI loari 
<f>avoL Kol aoiSifMOL, I 'EAAciSo? tpu(Tp.a, kXuvoX 'A^avat, | 8ai/xdvtov iTTokUOpov. 
If, as seems likely, the present quotation from Solon is drawn from a pas- 
sage descri})tive of Athens, the famous epithet is a hundred years older than 
has previously been suspected. The exact meaning of the word as an epithet 
of Athens is doubtful ; Clapp argues that it refers to the brilliance of the 
atmosphere ; but the present fragment may lend some weight to the opinion 
that it refers to the soil as the source of life. 

KovpoTp6cf)o<; : this word is used of Ithaca in Hom. Od. ix 27 rprjxd* 
oAA' ayaOr) KovpoTp6<f>o<;. Whether in Solon's poem it was an epithet of 
the personified Earth (T^), of course it is impossible to say. For the per- 
sonified KovpoTp6(f)o^, see Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena, pp. 267 ff". 

XLIII 

Photius states that Ktyxavetv was used by Solon in the sense of lirf. 
^UvaL, while Suidas' statement is that it was so used in the time of Solon 
(ot Trepi SdAwva). In what way the words are synonymous is not clear. 
Though KLyxpiVuv or klxolvuv is not infrequent in elegiac and iambic poets, it 



THE FRAGMENTS OF SOLON'S POEMS 245 

never seems to bear any of the recognized meanings of iTre^Uvai. Probably, 
as Bergk remarks, the word was used in an ancient law. It may have 
meant "to catch one's enemy," "to bring about his conviction," a common 
meaning of iire^uvat. 

XLIV 

pov<s was the name of a small tree, the sumach, or its fruit. Apparently 
the word is here a neuter, which may have been the form used for seasoning 
which was made from the fruit. It may have been in the poem from which 
xxix, XXX, and xxxiii are all probably drawn. 

XLV 

This fragment is included in the collections of Gaisford, Schneidewin, and 
Hartung, but not in those of Bergk and Hiller-Crusius. It consists of a 
single iambic trimeter, and cannot, of course, be part of an elegiac couplet as 
the Paroemiographi assert. Hartung is probably right in saying that 
though these words themselves are not Solon's own, a similar sentiment was 
expressed in one of his elegiac poems. Gaisford, however, thinks eAeyctwv 
is a corruption for lafx/Siov or viroOrjKQyv. 

XLVI 

This fragment is included in the collections of Hartung, Bergk, and 
Hiller-Crusius, but not in those of Gaisford and Schneidewin. The name 
of Solon is not mentioned in connection with it in any of the testimonia, 
and the assignment of it to Solon by the scholiast on Plato is uncertain. 



APPENDICES 



APPENDIX 1 
SALAMIS 

There is no difference of opinion about the fact that Salamis 
came into the power of Athens at some time early in the sixth 
century. The questions at issue are these : Did this important 
event happen before or after the cardinal date of Solon's ar- 
chonship ? Had Athens ever been in possession of the island 
before ? Was the conquest effected by Solon or by Pisistratus or 
by some other ? What is to be thought of the ancient tradition 
which related with full circumstantial detail the manner of its 
acquisition through the efforts of Solon ? ^ 

The most important text bearing upon these matters is in 
Plutarch's Life of Solon (chaps. 8-10). 

From this passage we learn, in the first place, that there 
was known in ancient times a poem by Solon, in elegiac verse, 
entitled '' Salamis," consisting of one hundred lines. It is 
probable that it was still extant in the time of Plutarch, because 
Plutarch's judgment of its merit seems to rest upon his own 
reading. He quotes the first two lines ; three other couplets, of 
which two are successive, are preserved by Diogenes Laertius. 
We have, therefore, only eight verses, or four couplets, from the 
entire poem ; but Plutarch and his predecessors had the whole 
hundred. 

This poem was probably the most authoritative document 
in the possession of ancient historians concerning the Athenian 

1 A condensed review of the whole subject may be found in Busolt (1895, 
pp. 213-222, 247, 248), with full bibliographical references. The most important 
monograph is that of Toepffer (1886). Kirchner (1903), Lehmann-Haupt 
(1912), and De Sanctis (1912), adopting various views advocated by earlier 
writers, have not contributed anything of importance to the discussion. Refer- 
ence to Beloch (1913) wall be made later. 

249 



250 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

efforts to capture Salamis. The eight verses which are still be- 
fore our eyes tell us something ; the ninety-two lost verses must 
have told much more. If we are tempted to reject hastily cer- 
tain features of the story, we should remember that this authen- 
tic document could have preserved inviolate, under the seal of 
metrical form, a more or less circumstantial record of the condi- 
tions under which the poem was composed. What we learn 
from the extant fragments and what we are to think of the 
events which preceded the publication are questions which have 
been discussed elsewhere (pp. 39 ff.). It remains to examine 
the rest of Plutarch's narrative. 

It will be observed that Plutarch's two accounts of the cam- 
paign against Salamis are highly circumstantial and of an un- 
questionably legendary cast. There is no known way in which 
such stories as these could have been transmitted from the age 
of Solon to the Attic chroniclers of the fifth century, except by 
irresponsible oral tradition. Each story, as a whole, must be 
rejected. But there may be embedded in them fragments of 
truth which have a better claim on our credence. 

The first story appears in several other authors besides Plu- 
tarch. The earliest of these is Aeneas Tacticus of Stymphalus 
(circa 362 B.C.), who tells what is manifestly the same story,, 
but with very striking differences (^Comm. Pol, iv 8 ff.). In 
Plutarch, Solon is the commander and Pisistratus is his lieuten- 
ant ; in Aeneas, Pisistratus is in command and there is no 
mention whatever of Solon. In Plutarch, the scene is laid at 
Cape Colias, a promontory southeast of Piraeus and Phalerum ; 
in Aeneas, it is laid at Eleusis. In Plutarch, the Athenians, 
after the success of their stratagem, sail forth and capture 
Salamis ; in Aeneas, they sail for Megara, and, pretending they 
are Megarians bringing back the Athenian women as captives, 
deceive the Megarians and inflict great losses upon them. 
Thus, in the earliest extant form of the story, all connection 
with Solon and Salamis is absent. 



APPENDIX 1 251 

Justinus, in his epitome of Pompeius Trogus, tells the story 
again (ii 7 f.). Here, as in Aeneas, the initiative is taken by 
the Megarians, who desire to avenge themselves for the capture 
of Salamis, which has already occurred. Again the scene is 
laid in Eleusis, and Pisistratus is in command. Justinus adds 
that Pisistratus almost succeeded in capturing Megara, and that 
the glory of this achievement served him as a stepping stone to 
the tyranny. 

A version similar to that of Aeneas and Justinus appears also 
in the Strategemata of Frontinus (ii 9, 9). 

Plutarch's version, on the other hand, with Cape Colias, 
Solon, and Salamis, is found again in the Strategemata of 
Polyaenus (i 20, circa 163 A.D.). But here Pisistratus is not 
mentioned at all, not even as Solon's lieutenant.^ 

Evidently we have in this story a commonplace of strategy 
which could be told as well of one captain as of another, and no 
argument is needed to prove that it is of no historical value. 
It could be told equally well of Pisistratus, who, as we know, 
captured Nisaea, the port of Megara (Herodotus i 59), and of 
Solon, who was the reputed conqueror of Salamis. To which 
name it was first attached, it is impossible to say with assurance. 

The search for the genesis of such a legend is alluring but 
likely to be futile. Toepffer (pp. 22 ff.) offers a solution of 
the problem as follows : He cites a number of texts to show 
that events similar to those which form the basis of the story 
were supposed to have occurred at Brauron on the east coast of 
Attica, and since Brauron was the home of Pisistratus, he con- 
cludes that the story was first told of Pisistratus at Brauron. 
Later, when Pisistratus had distinguished himself in the war 
with Megara, the scene was transferred to Eleusis. Still later, 
when the fame of Solon had been greatly augmented by the 

1 For the interdependence of these ancient authorities, see Toepffer, pp. 6 ff . 
He takes for granted (p. 22) that the version of Aeneas, Trogus-Justinus, and 
Frontinus is the earlier, and that of Plutarch and Polyaenus the later. This is 
probable but can hardly be regarded as certain. 



252 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

tradition that he was the conqueror of Salamis, the story was 
transferred to him. The several steps by which this last trans- 
ference was effected are explained by Busolt (1895, p. 219, foot- 
note) as follows. The Thesmophoria which were celel^rated at 
Halimus, near Cape Colias, bore sufficient resemblance to the 
ritual of the women at Eleusis to carry the story over to 
Halimus. Then, since iNIegara was not accessible from Cape 
Colias, the object of the Athenian attack was changed from 
Megara to Salamis. Lastly, since Solon was the reputed con- 
queror of Salamis, he became the leading figure in the new 
version of the story and Pisistratus, who could not be left out, 
was degraded to the rank of his lieutenant. 

This is highly ingenious but quite unconvincing and unsup- 
ported by any real evidence. Furthermore, the events which 
took place at Brauron bear only a superficial resemblance to 
those at Eleusis or Cape Colias. The essential feature — the 
disguise of young men in women's garments — is entirely ab- 
sent. The only point of similarity is that in both cases the 
women were engaged in a religious ceremonial ; but in the one 
case, at Brauron, they were actually seized and carried off ; in 
the other, the attempt to seize them was made the occasion for 
a clever ruse. 

Until its origin can be more convincingly demonstrated, it 
is reasonable to assume that the story is a folk tale which could 
be told of any military hero, and that it has no discoverable 
foundation in fact. It was localized at Eleusis and Cape Colias 
probably because women's festivals were held in those places. 
It may conceivably have originated in some piece of ritual 
which required that men should be disguised as women,i but it 
is quite as likely that the stratagem of the disguise was an 

1 One is reminded of the 6a-xo(f)6poL, the two boys who were dressed in 
women's clothes and marched at the head of the procession from Athens to 
Phalerum at the festival of the Oschophoria. It is significant that the cult of 
Athena Sciras, in connection with which the festival was celebrated, was brought 
to Phalerum from Salamis. 



APPENDIX 1 253 

original invention, either of the story teller or of some unknown 
captain. In any case, it must be ruled out of court as evidence 
for the history of the conquest of Salamis. 

Plutarch's second account is of a different sort, and though 
it contains a legend like that in the first account, it contains 
more besides. ^ 

Toepffer (pp. 7 ff.) claims that the legend came into exist- 
ence at a time long subsequent to the conquest of Salamis. 
His argument may be summarized as follows : The city of 
Salamis on the northeastern shore of the island was founded by 
the Athenians after their occupation. The old city of Salamis 
lay on the south side of the island facing Aegina. But Solon's 
landing is supposed to have been made on the coast facing 
Attica. Now since the attack on the city, in order to be suc- 
cessful, must be sudden and unexpected, the author of the story 
must have been thinking of new Salamis. Therefore, since old 
Salamis, the city actually seized by the Athenians, was for- 
gotten, the story must have been invented long after the 
conquest. 

Two criticisms may be brought against this argument. In 
the first place, if Athens was fighting to recover Salamis, which, 
as we have seen, may have been the case, the new city might 
already have been built during a previous Athenian occupation . 
In the second place, there is nothing to prove that Solon was 
supposed to have landed nearer the new city. The only evi- 
dence for this is Wilamowitz' proposed reading of Sv/jLocrav for 
the manifestly corrupt reading ^v(3oiav which appears in the 
manuscripts. Furthermore, Toepffer himself claims to prove 
(pp. 11 ff.) that the promontory of Sciradium lay on the south 
side of the island, and it was here that the ceremony was per- 
formed which Plutarch accepts as a confirmation of the whole 
story. 

1 The stratagem which forms the kernel of this second account is also re- 
ported by Aelian V. H. vii 19. According to Toepffer (p. 4), his narrative is 
derived from the same source which was used by Plutarch. 



254 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

It is not necessary, however, to resort to such fine-drawn 
arguments in order to convince ourselves that we are dealing 
with a legend. Plutarch himself betrays the truth, as Toepffer 
himself saw (p. 18), by his citation of the religious ceremony in 
support of the credibility of the legend, which may be set down 
without hesitation as an aetiological myth. It is altogether 
natural that this piece of martial ritual should have been 
associated with Solon and the capture of the island where the 
ritual was performed, especially in view of the temple of Enya- 
lius, about which more will be said later. 

The Delphic oracle need not detain us. It can be rejected 
immediately as a forgery. But it is interesting to note that it 
must have been composed at a time when the method of burial 
was regarded as important evidence in support of the Athenian 
claim to the island. Now Plutarch informs us in the next 
chapter that this very evidence was adduced by Solon before 
the Spartan board of arbitration. If, as is probable, the argu- 
ments which were advanced by the Athenians in the court of 
arbitration, and indeed the arbitration proceedings themselves, 
belong to a much later period, it is reasonable to conclude that 
the oracle was an invention of the fifth century or later. 

We are now left with two features in this second account 
which cannot lightly be set aside as fictitious : the Athenian 
decree calling for five hundred volunteers for the campaign and 
promising them complete autonomy in the government of the 
island in the event of its capture, and the foundation by Solon 
of a temple in honor of Enyalius. Neither of these statements 
is involved in the legend itself, and both deserve independent 
consideration. 

The decree calling for five hundred volunteers is a thing for 
which Greek historians could have had authentic testimony.^ 
In the first place, there may well have been a stone, set up in 

1 Toepffer (p. 19, footnote 1) thinks that the number of cleruchs (500) is a 
true record of some settlement. But it is uncritical suspicion for him to d^^iiy^ 
as he does, without proof that it had anything to do with Solon. 



APPENDIX 1 255 

Athens or in Salamis, bearing a decree passed by the Athenians 
after the conquest of Salamis, in which was formally recorded 
the political status of the five hundred men who had offered 
themselves as volunteers. It is difficult otherwise to account for 
the exact number five hundred, and for Plutarch's inclusion of 
a comparatively unpicturesque detail like this in the midst of a 
more lively narrative, which is otherwise altogether religious in 
its origin. In the second place, if five hundred volunteers were 
called and given their political independence in Salamis, their 
descendants would inevitably have formed the aristocracy of the 
island and would have sedulously preserved the tradition of the 
origin of their high estate, whether orally from father to son or 
in written records, similar to those of Athenian phratries. The 
statement, therefore, about the five hundred volunteers is not to 
be rejected on the ground that there could have been no authen- 
tic record of such a matter. That there was such a record, of 
course we cannot say ; but it is much, where our footing is so 
uncertain, to be able to discern a possible path by which reliable 
information concerning the event in question could have de- 
scended to the time of written history.^ 

Now if we are convinced that Plutarch's statement is not 
necessarily a legendary specter, but may possibly be real flesh 
and blood, we should next consider whether or not it is histori- 
cally probable. If the conquest of Salamis was really carried 
through by the efforts of Solon, is it likely that the method 
employed would have been that indicated by the decree calling 
for five hundred volunteers and offering political independence 
in the event of success ? The answer is emphatically in the 
affirmative. In the first place, a foreign war at this moment 
would have done much to relieve the tensity of domestic affairs 
in Athens. We know that Solon urged the prosecution of the 
campaign ; conjecture need go no farther than to suggest what 

1 The words 6<roi fxr) SiecpOdprfo-av iv ry fidxv Trdvras virocnr6v8ovs d(f)iJKei> suggest 
the possibility of an inscribed record. 



256 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

may have been his motives. In the second place, an army re- 
cruited in this way, fighting at once for their own personal ad- 
vantage and for the glory of Athens, would have thus offered a 
double hope of success. Salamis could be held for Athens, the 
Megarians could be shut inside their own port of Nisaea, and the 
sea would be open for Athenian commerce. The extraordinary 
compatibility of these two statesmanlike aims justifies us in 
attaching the greatest importance to Plutarch's statement about 
five hundred volunteers. 

We now come to the other feature of Plutarch's second 
account of the campaign. Near the spot on the coast of Salamis 
where the religious ceremonial was performed, says Plutarch, 
stands the temple of Enyalius which was founded by Solon. 
The form of this sentence deserves attention : a definite temple 
is referred to {to lepov^ as if it were well known, and the verb 
is in the present tense. Either Plutarch had seen it, or, at any 
rate, he had no doubt of its existence. The foundation of it by 
Solon is mentioned as if that, too, were a matter of common 
knowledge. It is the locality of the temple which Plutarch 
emphasizes : its proximity to the scene of the ritual is proof to 
him that Solon, who founded the temple, also had a part in the 
proceedings which engendered the ritual. The temple and its 
foundation stand quite outside the aetiological myth. 

But how could Plutarch or his sources know that this 
temple had been founded by Solon ? Surely nothing is simpler. 
Literary evidence or tradition need not be called on here. A 
dedicatory inscription set up within the precinct would be the 
best proof of all. And if the temple Avas so founded by Solon, 
such an inscription could hardly have been lacking. Of course 
we cannot be sure. There may have been simply a popular 
tradition in Salamis that Solon was the founder of the shrine. 
But, at any rate, this temple again cannot be overlooked in 
assembling the evidence touching the question whether Solon 
was concerned in the conquest of Salamis or not. 



APPENDIX 1 257 

After the two accounts of the campaign which have just 
been examined, Plutarch (^Sol. x) describes another episode in 
the fortunes of Sahimis. The war between Athens and Megara 
continued, he says, causing much hardship to both sides. In 
the end, the two cities called in the Lacedaemonians to serve as 
arbitrators and decide which was the lawful owner of the 
island. A board of five Spartans, whom Plutarch mentions by 
name, decided in favor of Athens. Solon was the Athenian 
advocate in the trial, and we are told of the evidence which he 
laid before the court in support of the Athenian claim. Now 
Beloch has shown (1913, pp. 312, 313) that the settlement of 
the rival claims through Spartan arbitration could not have 
taken place till the end of the sixth century and that there is 
good reason for fixing its date precisely at 508-7. If we accept 
Beloch's conclusions, which are altogether convincing, we 
recognize that there is no connection between Solon and the 
arbitration, and that he was brought into the matter by tradi- 
tion simply because of his poem and his reputation as the con- 
queror of Salamis. 

A few pages later Plutarch says QSol. xii 3) that during the 
disturbances incident to the trial of the Alcmeonidae the Me- 
garians attacked Athens, recovered Nisaea, and drove the 
Athenians out of Salamis again. Plutarch's chronology is so 
unreliable that we cannot say for certain just when this event 
took place, if it took place at all. Some think that the loss of 
Salamis referred to is that which Solon had in mind when he 
spoke of the ^aXafJuva^ercov, and that it preceded the supposed 
recovery by him. But we do not know that Athens ever held 
Nisaea until it was won by Pisistratus, and for this reason the 
loss of Nisaea and Salamis would have to be dated long after 
Solon's archonship. If the Salaminian controversy was still 
burning at the end of the century, it is probable that the loss 
referred to by Plutarch was only one of many vicissitudes in the 
fortunes of the island. 



258 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

This completes the examination of the tradition connecting 
Solon with Salamis, as it is reported by Plutarch and by other 
ancient authors who have something to say concerning the cir- 
cumstances which are included in Plutarch's narrative. To 
these texts we should add the following. Diodorus (ix 1) says 
that Solon was of Salaminian family (a manifest error); and 
Diogenes Laertius (i 45) applied to him the epithet 2aXa/itwo9, 
as if he had been born in the island. From Aeschines (i 25) 
we learn that in his time there was a statue of Solon in the 
market place of the city of Salamis. The comic poet Cratinus 
(ap. Diog. Laert. i 62), in his play called Xeipcove^^ represents 
Solon himself as speaking the two folloAving lines : 
OL/co) 8e VYjcrov, &)? jiev avOpcoircov X070?, 
iairap/xei^o^; kutcl iraaav Kiavro^ ttoXlv. 
The meaning of these lines is made clear by Plutarch (^Sol. 
xxxii 4), who reports the story that Solon's body was burned 
and his ashes scattered over the island of Salamis. He believes 
the story to be merely a legend, though he admits that it has 
the authority of Aristotle. Whether the body of Solon was 
disposed of in this way or not, the legend, which became current 
before the middle of the fifth century B.c.,^ must have been 
founded on a popular belief that Solon was in some sense the 
heroic founder of a colony in Salamis. If Solon obtained a de- 
cree from the Athenians calling for five hundred volunteers and 
promising them political independence, and if these same five 
hundred men succeeded in their attempt and enjoyed the fruits 
of their success, there was justice in their regarding him in 
some sort as their otVto-TTJ?, and in course of time the story might 
easily come into existence that his ashes had been scattered over 
the island. At any rate, the two circumstances corroborate one 
another in a striking way, especially as they do not appear 
together in any artificially constructed ancient account. 

In only three places do we find any divergence from the 
1 Cratinus flourished about 454 b.c. 



APPENDIX 1 259 

universal belief that Solon was the conqueror of Salamis. 
Daimachus of Plataea (ap. Flut. Comp. Sol. et Puhl. iv 1) and 
certain writers referred to by Aristotle in the Constitution of 
Athens (xvii 2) deny that Solon won any military glory in the 
war with Megara.^ This modification of the ancient tradition 
we are justified in accepting. Neither of the stories of Solon's 
military prowess in the fight for Salamis has any real founda- 
tion ; and, furthermore, there is nothing in his character or in 
his whole career, as we know it, which would lead us to suppose 
that he had any talent for arms. All the more reliable evidence 
supports his skill as a statesman rather than as a general. The 
third dissentient voice is that of the Megarians themselves, who, 
according to Fausanias (i 40, 5), claimed that Salamis had been 
betrayed into the hands of the Athenians by Megarian traitors. 
This again concerns the strictly military aspect of the conquest. 
Either the story was a Megarian invention to lessen the discredit 
attaching to themselves in the loss of the island, which is most 
likely ; or Megarian treason served as an auxiliary to the 
Athenians on one of the occasions when they were fighting for 
the island. It does not touch Solon's real part in the business, 
even if it occurred during the campaign which resulted from 
Solon's exhortations. 

We have now examined all the evidence concerning the re- 
lation between Solon and the conquest of Salamis. We have 
seen that antiquity with scarcely a dissenting voice ascribed 
the glory of the achievement to him and no other. We have 
found reason to reject some details in the tradition, and to 
recognize in others the possibility or even the probability of 
truth. It now remains to consider the views of some modern 
scholars who resolutely deny the ancient tradition. These 

1 Meyer (1893, p. 647) says that Daimachus was led by the apocryphal 
nature of the story which Plutarch gives as his second account of the campaign, 
to doubt the reality of the war. But Daimachus did not doubt the reality of the 
war, and it is a mere fancy to find the source of Daimachus' opinion in the 
second account. 



260 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

views vary in details, but they are united in the common asser- 
tion that the credit for the conquest of Sahimis belongs, not 
to Solon, but to Pisistratus. Our best approach to these views 
will be through an examination of the texts which bear on 
the connection of Pisistratus with the conquest. 

Only two passages explicitly connect Pisistratus' name with 
Salamis. One we have already seen in Plutarch, who says that 
Pisistratus supported Solon's plea that the effort to conquer 
Salamis should be renewed and took part wdth him in the 
expedition Avhich sailed from Cape Colias after the success of 
Solon's stratagem. 1 In Aeneas, however, and Justinus and 
Frontinus, we find the stratagem itself attributed to Pisistratus 
with no mention of Solon whatever. But the scene of Pisistra- 
tus' stratagem is Eleusis, and not a word is said of Salamis. 
Indeed, both Aeneas and Justinus say that after the execution 
of the stratagem, Pisistratus proceeded to attack Megara 
itself. 

Herodotus, in his account of the rise of the Athenian 
tyranny (i 59), informs us that before Pisistratus asked the 
Athenians for a bodyguard he had distinguished himself in the 
campaign against Megara, capturing Nisaea and performing 
other great deeds. We have, therefore, by the side of the gen- 
erally attested tradition that Solon was the conqueror of Salamis, 
this new statement that Pisistratus too fought against the 
iMcgarians and conquered Nisaea. If we accept both at their 
face value, we shall have to assume that there were two wars, 
or one long-continued war, between .Vthens and ]\Iegara, and 
that the conquest of Salamis belongs to an earlier, the conquest 
of Nisaea to a later, stage of it. This is also the view of Aris- 
totle (^Con.sf. of Atli. xvii) who says tliat Pisistratus had greatly 

1 Toepffer thinks that Pisistratus' name is omitted by Polyaenns because his 
account is primarily concerned with Solon. Hue: and Bohren think he omitted 
it IxM'ause he saw the chronolo<;ical discrepancy. It is more likely that he 
omitted it because it is of no significance in the story ; to Toepffer, specialist in 
the history of Pisistratus, the omission looms large. 



APPENDIX 1 261 

distinguished himself in the war against Megara before he 
attempted to seize the tyrann}', but that chronological consider- 
ations show the impossibility of Pisistratus having been in 
command in the fight for Salamis, as some claim that he was.^ 
From these last words — '' as some claim that he was " — we see 
that even l)efore Aristotle's time there had been some to say 
that Pisistratus had been the military commander in the Sala- 
minian campaign. This is the other of the two texts referred 
to above which connect Pisistratus with Salamis. ^ 

The case for Pisistratus rests upon this evidence.^ The 
arguments Avhich may be drawn from it have been most recently 
and most effectively presented by Belocli (1913, pp. 309 ff.), as 
follows : 

1. It was believed in later times that Solon had recovered 
Salamis. But, considering the nature of the tradition, there is 
not the slightest proof of the truth of this. It is manifestly 
only a conclusion based on the poem. 

2. Athens, in Solon's time, was not in a condition to think 
of foreign conquest. 

3. There were critical doubts even in ancient times whether 
Solon had really held the military command against Salamis. 
Daimachus of Plataea expressed such doubt ; and, Beloch might 

1 Wilamowitz (1893, I, 268) considers Aristotle's evidence of no special value 
l^ecaiise he was only copying from the Atthis. But admitting that he was copy- 
ing from the Atthis (which, of course, cannot be proved), there is no reason to 
"believe Aristotle wrong simply because he accepted the statement of an earlier 
authority. 

2 Strabo (ix 394) says that according to some authorities it was Pisistratus, 
according to others Solon, who forged the Homeric line which was quoted before 
the Spartan board of arbitration in support of the Athenian claim to Salamis. 
But -we have seen that the arbitration belongs at the end of the sixth century, 
long after the death of both Solon and Pisistratus. 

3 It is surprising, says Toepffer (p. 41), that so important a matter as the 
capture of Salamis should not have been definitely attached in early times to 
some name : Solon was not credited with it till a comparatively late period, and 
no ancient author attributes it to Pisistratus. This is rather a staggering blow, 
one would think, for Toepffer's argument. But he disarms criticism. Probably 
the true account of the acquisition of Salamis, he says, is given by Pausanias 
(i 40, 5) : Salamis was betrayed into the hands of the Athenians, and there was 
no Athenian conqueror ! 



262 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

have added, the unknown persons referred to by Aristotle ex- 
pressly gave the credit of the military success to Pisistratus. 

4. Pisistratus appears by the side of Solon in Plutarch's 
first account of the campaign. It is chronologically impossible, 
as Aristotle points out, that both men should have had a part in 
it. If Salamis was conquered when Pisistratus was old enough to 
hold a high military command, Solon was too old to fight. The 
poem, to be sure, could have been written by Solon late in life, 
but there is not the slightest reason for this assumption : it was 
probably merely a " Schlag ins Wasser " like other chauvinistic 
productions of the same sort. It is to be concluded then, that 
not both men, but only one took part in the military campaign: 
which was it ? If Salamis had been conquered by Solon, it would 
never have occurred to any one to bring Pisistratus' name into the 
business ; but if Pisistratus was the conqueror, it is only natural 
that the credit should have been ascribed to Solon because of the 
poem. Therefore the conqueror was Pisistratus. Plutarch's nar- 
rative is an unsuccessful attempt to harmonize the tw^o versions. 
The conquest of Salamis was accomplished in the same war in 
which Pisistratus captured Nisaea ; but Herodotus does not men- 
tion it because tradition had already transferred it to Solon. ^ 
The following may be said in reply to these arguments : 
1. If the tradition is unreliable in Solon's case, it is equally 
unreliable for Pisistratus. But in a matter so important to 
Athens as the acquisition of Salamis, it is more than probable 
that people would remember accurately who deserved the credit 
for it ; and the ancient tradition, beginning, as Beloch points 
out, at a period earlier than Herodotus, was unanimous in favor of 
Solon. It is a significant thing that the only ancient authorities 
who raise the slightest question, Daimachus of Plataea and the 
persons mentioned by Aristotle, refer solely to the military 
command ; no one denies that Solon was the guiding statesman, 

1 According to Toepffer (p. 29), Herodotus knew notliing as yet of the con- 
nection between Solon and the Megarian war. This is a good example of the^ 
way in which the argument from silence can be used on both sides. 



APPENDIX 1 263 

and the very fact that these two expressly deny his military 
leadership tacitly corroborates the rest of the tradition. 

2. In the second argument Beloch exaggerates both the dis- 
order in Athens and the magnitude of the effort required to 
conquer Salamis. Athens was not in a state of civil war. 
There was indeed profound discontent among the lower classes 
due to the economic stringency and the restraint upon personal 
liberty. It would have been an act of wise policy to distract 
the minds of the people from their personal grievances by unit- 
ing citizens of all classes in a concerted effort against Megara. 
And the population, so united, would have been powerful 
enough to wrest the island from the neighboring city. 

3. Daimachus, as we have seen, may well have been right. 
Aristotle himself, though he asserts that Pisistratus could not 
have been the captain, does not expressly say that Solon was; 
and yet he directly connects the war with Solon. Solon fired 
the people to make the attempt ; the campaign Avas probably 
conducted by the polemarch who was in office at the time.^ 

4. We may admit that if Pisistratus was really the con- 
queror of Salamis, the authorship of the poem might have 
operated to deprive him of the credit of it and give it to Solon. 
But, on the other hand, the fact that Pisistratus was known to 
be the conqueror of Nisaea, coupled with the fact that Solon 
was not famous for military exploits, would have been sufficient 
to cause some writers to conjecture that it was Pisistratus and 
not Solon who conducted the campaign. The Solonian author- 
ship of the poem cannot properly be used as evidence that some 
one else carried the undertaking through. The only real 
ground for giving Pisistratus the credit is to be found in 
Herodotus' report that he captured Nisaea and otherwise dis- 
tinguished himself. But it is quite unreasonable to suppose 

1 Toepffer (pp. 4 ff.) seems to think that by discrediting the legendary ac- 
counts of the campaign, he proves that Solon had no part in the conquest. But 
the refutation of these circumstantial accounts leaves the more serious arguments 
in support of Solon's participation untouched. 



264 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

that there was only one brief war between Athens and Megara,^ 
and that since Nisaea was captured at a time when Fisistratus 
was old enough to hold a military command, Salamis must 
therefore have been captured at the same time. If there is one 
fact which is abundantly proved by ancient tradition and by 
inherent probability, it is that the feud between Athens and 
Megara lasted for decades, indeed almost for centuries. Beloch 
himself recognizes that the legal proprietorship of Salamis was 
still in dispute at the end of the sixth century. 

When did these signal events occur ? ^ The ancients, with- 
out exception, believed that they occurred before Solon's archon- 
ship, which fell at some time between 594 and 590. If there 
were really inscriptions relating to several circumstances in the 
affair, as we have surmised, there was probably sound reason 
for putting the conquest at this time. There is no reason 
whatever for dating it after the archonship. Furthermore, if 
the course of events was substantially as we have described 
them, and if they actually preceded the archonship, we have a 
plausible explanation of the extraordinary measure by which 
Solon as archon was made supreme dictator in Athens. There 
was nothing else in Solon's earlier life, so far as we know, to 
justify the state in conferring such unbounded power upon him. 
But the affair of Salamis would have won for him the enthusi- 
astic confidence of all ; he had led the state in a patriotic enter- 
prise ; he had earned the admiration of the poor without 
alienating the respect of the rich ; and he had shown a states- 
manlike comprehension of the internal problems for which 
Athens must sooner or later find a solution. 

1 This is made abundantly clear by Meyer (1893, p. 646) and Busolt (1895, 
p. 221, footnote). 

2 For the date of the poem, Busolt (1895, p. 217, footnote 2) quotes with 
approval Gudschmid's observation that there is a youthful vigor about the frag- 
ments of Solon's poem, and claims that it is monstrous to attribute the poem to a 
man seventy years of age and a recognized leader in the state. But the poems 
which are known to belong to his later period show ;vs much spirit ; and Wila- 
mowitz' words arc worth repeating (1893. 1. 268): '*das stilgcfuhl, zehn versen 
anzuriccheu, da.ss sie nur ein jiingling geschrieben haben kihine, ist etwas was 
ich auch nur von den gottern zu erbitten fiir iiberhehung halten wlirde." 



APPENDIX 2 
DATE OF THE ARCHONSHIP 

There are several direct statements in the ancient authors 
concerning the date of Solon's archonship. Sosicrates (ap. 
Diog. L. i 62) fixes it at 01. 46.3 (594/3). Tatian {adv. Graecos 
41) and Clement of Alexandria {Strom, i 63) assign it to 01. 46 
(596/3) without more precise specification of the year. Suidas 
{s.v. 'LoXcov) states: jeyove iirl rr)? /jl^' 'OXv/i7nd8o<; {01. 47 = 
592-589) ol Be i/?' (01. 56 = 556-553). The records of the 
date which was accepted by Eusebius do not agree with one 
another: the Armenian version gives Abr. 1426 (= 0^.47.2 = 
591); various MSS. of Jerome give Abr. 1421, 1423, 1426 
(= 01. 46.1.3.; 47.1.2=596, 594, 592, 591). 

Besides these direct statements, there are two indirect ways 
of coming at the date, as follows: 

Aristotle {Const, of Ath. xiv 1) says that Pisistratus became 
tyrant in the archonship of Comeas, which fell in the thirty- 
second year after the legislation of Solon. Now, according to 
the Parian Marble, Comeas was archon 297 years before Diogne- 
tus (264/3). If 297 is exclusive, the date was 561/0, if it was 
inclusive, 560/59. 

Again, the length of the tyranny in Athens is variously 
given at 49 years (Arist. Const, of Ath. xix 6), 50 years 
(Eratosthenes ap. Schol. Aristoph. Wasps 502; Marmor Parium 
56 and 60; Aristotle Const, of Ath. xvii 1, where the reign of 
Pisistratus is given as 33 years, and Const, of Ath. xix 6, where 
the tyranny of his sons is given as 17 years), and 51 years 

265 



266 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

(Arist. Pol. viii 1315 b, 30 ff., where Pisistratus' rule is given 
as 33 years, and the rule of his sons as 18 years). The Pisis- 
tratidae were expelled in 511/10. Therefore, according as tlie 
figures 49, 50, 51, are regarded as inclusive or exclusive, the 
archonship of Corneas fell in 562/1, 561/0, 560/559, 559/8. 

Proceeding from these dates, we find, according as we take 
the figure 32 as inclusive or exclusive, that the date of Solon's 
legislation was 594/3, 593/2, 592/1, 591/0. If we accept one or 
other of the dates of the Parian Marble (561/0 and 560/59), and 
assume that the figure 32 is inclusive, which is more probable, 
the date of Solon's legislation was either 592/1 or 591/0. 

The following passage appears in Coyist. of Ath. xiii: SoX©- 
VQ^ Be aTToBrj/jL'^aavTO'^, en tt)? 7roX,ea)? T€Tapay/jieur}<;, iirl fieu errj 
rerrapa hirjyov iv riavyia' rip he. Tre/jLTrrq) jjuera rrjv ^6Xcopo<i ap'^rjv 
ou KaTeo-TTjaav dpy^ovra Blcl ttjv ardaiv^ Kal ttoXlv eret irefxiTTcp hia 
TTfV aurrjv alrCav dvapx^av iTTOirjaav. /xerd Be ravra Bid to)V 
auTcov '^povcov Aafiaaia^i aipeOel<i dp')(^cov err) Bvo koX Bvo /jirjva^ 
rjp^ev, eW i^rjXddr) /3ta r?)? dp)(^rj<;. 

Now we know from the Parian Marble (53 f.) that the first 
Pythian dycbv aTe(f>aviT7]<; occurred in the archonship of Dama- 
sias, and it is fairly certain that the date of this first occurrence 
was 582. Since Damasias held office for two years and two 
months, he must have been elected not earlier than 584 nor 
later than 582. 

It now remains to discover the interval between Solon and 
Damasias. This problem is complicated by the fact that Ta> 
ire'fMTTTQ) erei may in each case be taken as either inclusive or 
exclusive, and by the difficulty in the interpretation of Bid roiv 
auTCiiv '^povcov. 

Two meanings have been proposed for Bud rcov avrcov xpovfov: 
(1) "after the lapse of the same length of time"; (2) "im- 
mediately." Others delete the phrase as an interpolation. The 
normal meaning of Bed with the genitive in expressions of time 
is " at the end of an interval of," and if we had here Bed tov 



APPENDIX 2 267 

avTov 'x^povov it would unquestionably be equivalent to toj 
Tre/xTTTO) eret irdXiv. Aristotle probably used the plural because 
he was thinking of the several terms of office included in this 
thrice-recurring period. There is no convincing argument in 
favor of the meaning '' immediately " ; and deletion is a counsel 
of despair. 

Now a survey of the passage as a whole leads one to suppose 
that Aristotle is indicating three equal divisions in the time 
which elapsed between the archonship of Solon and the first 
year of the archonship of Damasias, marked by two years of 
anarchy. How long were these divisions ? If Tre/jLTrro) was in- 
clusive they were four years each, if exclusive, five years. Ac- 
cording to the regular usage of Aristotle in the Const, of Ath. 
ordinals are inclusive, and we should regard them as inclusive 
here without hesitation if it were not for the four years of peace 
spoken of in the first sentence. But it should be observed that 
in spite of these four years Aristotle takes pains to add the 
phrase fiera rrjv ap'^rjv after to) Tre/tTrTO), which suggests that he 
is following his usual practice of inclusive reckoning. The 
easiest explanation of the number four is that Aristotle had 
first in his mind the threefold division into periods of four years, 
and, wishing to say that there was peace in Athens up to the 
beginning of the fifth year after Solon's archonship (reckoning 
inclusively), he carelessly but naturally said that peace lasted 
iov four years. The most probable interpretation of the passage 
may be presented as follows : 

1. Three years of peace 

2. First year of anarchy 



3. Interval of three years 

4. Second year of anarchy 

5. Interval of three years 

6. First year of archonship of Damasias 

Total, 12 years. 



268 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Now since the first year of the archonship of Damasias 
fell in 584/3, 583/2, or 582/1, the archonship of Solon must 
have been in 596/5, 595/4, or 594/3. 

Various ingenious attempts have been made to manipulate 
the several lines of evidence in order to make them lead har- 
moniously to some single date, but none of them is convincing. 
The whole structure of argument is essentially unstable because 
there is no single point of support which can be accepted as 
fixed. 

For the whole subject consult Busolt (1895, II, 258, footnote 
3, 301, footnote 3, 311, footnote 2); Beloch (1913, pp. 160- 
166); and Sandys (1912, pp. 50 ff.). 



APPENDIX 3 
THE SEISACHTHEIA 

Plutarch says (aSW. xv. Cf. also Comp. Sol. et Pnhl. iii) 
that Solon's first official act ^ was a cancellation of debts and a 
prohibition of further loans iirl toI<^ acufiaa-iv^ and that Solon 
had applied to this measure the euphemistic term Seisachtheia,^ 
or " disburdenment." 

Aristotle (^Const. of Ath. vi) limits the measure to the first 
of the two clauses, viz., the cancellation of debts, but he says 
expressly, "they call this measure Seisachtheia " (^KoXovaLv, 
with no subject expressed).'^ Now if Aristotle had seen the 
word in a poem or a law of Solon he would have said, " he 
called this measure Seisachtheia." It is necessary to conclude 
therefore that Aristotle did not find it in Solon's own writings; 
and if Aristotle did not find it there, it is probable that it was 
not there at all. 

Again, we observe that there was considerable variation 
among the aiicients in their opinion of the meaning of the word. 

Androtion and a few others (ap. Plut. /Sol. xv) said that 
the relief which w^as termed Seisachtheia had been brought about 

1 Wilamowitz (1893, II, p. 62) conjectures that the proclamation ordaining 
the cancellation of debts was substituted by Solon for the usual proclamation 
made by an archon on assuming office, in which he promised that he would pro- 
tect all Athenians in the possession of the property which they held at the time 
of his inauguration (Const, of Ath. Ivi 2). It is not certain, however, that tliis 
proclamation was the rule so early as the time of Solon. 

2 A similar definition of Seisachtheia is found in Diog. Laert. i 45 (Xdrpuxris 
<T(jJixdT(jjv re kol KT7]ij.dT0}p) ; Apostolius xv 39 ; Philochorus ap. Siiidas a. v. Zei<r- 
ctx^eta (=frag. 67, F. H. G. I, 393) ; Heracleides Ponticus irepl ttoXitciQu 1 5 
(F. R. G. II, 208) ; Diodorus i 79. 

3 Cf . Plut. Sol. XV who quotes Androtion as saying that the poor had given 
the name Seisachtheia to Solon's measures of relief. 

269 



270 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

by the reduction of the legal rate of interest and by a modifica- 
tion of the currency and the prevailing system of measures. 

Plutarch, after his account of the means of relief adopted 
by Solon, goes on to say that though both parties were dissatis- 
fied at first, they later saw the advantages in the plan and made 
a sacrifice together, calling the sacrifice Seisachtheia. 

Apostolius (xv 39) reports a proverb — leta-d'^^OeLd ctol /xT)Be- 
TTore jevoLTo — which was quoted to people who owed money and 
had not yet paid it. 

Now if Solon had used it with definite reference to some 
particular measure, it is probable that any reader of the poem 
or law where it appeared could have known with some certainty 
from the context just what measure was meant, and we should 
not have such divergent explanations of the word as we actually 
find — a cancellation of all debts, a cancellation of some debts, a 
modification in the currency, a reduction in the legal rate of 
interest, and a festival in celebration of a popular reform. It 
is, of course, conceivable that Solon should have used it in a 
poem with reference to his reforms in general, so that the con- 
t3xt would not throw any light on what the reforms really were. 
But in this case it would not have referred to any particular 
measure. 

It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Solon did not 
use the word at all, or that if he did, he did not use it as a name 
for some particular measure. In either case we do not need to 
ask the question what measure Solon called Seisachtheia. We 
should say rather that others applied the term to some part or 
the whole of Solon's reforms, and that it was not proper to any 
measure in particular. Most people applied it to the cancella- 
tion of debts ; some to the cancellation of debts together with 
the supplementary law abolishing loans iirl tol^; aay/iao-Lv ; a few 
to other financial reforms which Solon was supposed to have 
introduced. Our proper inquiry is to discover the nature 
of the reforms which Solon actually accomplished, not to 



AI>PEND1X 3 271 

decide which one of them has the best right to be called 
Seisachtheia. 

Where the word came from we cannot tell. We may con- 
jecture that it came into existence to voice the demands of some 
radical democratic party in Athens who looked back to Solon as 
the founder of the popular party, applied the term Seisachtheia 
to the services which he had rendered to the people, and made it 
a rallying cry for new ventures in reform. It is an apt expres- 
sion for the aspirations of the lower class, and once born it was 
destined to live. 

We should now proceed to consider whether any or all of 
the several performances to which the word Seisachtheia was 
popularly applied may justly be attributed to Solon. 

To begin with, we may safely reject the statement that it 
was the name of a festival instituted in honor of Solon's services 
to the state. There is no likely way in which such a fact as this 
could be known to Plutarch or his sources ; neither of the two 
parties in the state was disposed to rejoice over Solon's measures, 
because both were disappointed in them ; and the notion that 
Seisachtheia was the name of a festival arose easily in the case 
of a word of ill-defined meaning like Seisachtheia because of 
the similarity of its formation to that of well-known names of 
festivals. 

We are left, therefore, with the statements that Solon cancelled 
some or all of the outstanding debts in Athens, that he established 
a law prohibiting loans inl roU aw/jLaa-Lv, that he reduced the 
legal rate of interest, and that he introduced modifications 
in the currency and in tlie system of weights and measures. 

Now these last two statements, which we have on the author- 
ity of Androtion, will require more extended investigation. But 
it should be observed in passing that they were made by Andro- 
tion because he thought the word Seisachtheia referred to some 
particular thing which required definition and because he re- 
jected for some reason the other and more widely accepted be- 



272 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

lief that the Seisachtheia was a cancellation of debts. These 
considerations cast a little suspicion on Androtion's testimony. 
The first two statements are on a different footing. We 
know beyond a doubt that Solon did something which produced 
precisely the results Avhich would have been produced by a can- 
cellation of debts (pp. 62 ff.). Whether he canceled all out- 
standing debts our evidence does not permit us to say.^ Such 
an act as this, calculated to meet an extraordinary emergency, 
could hardly have been Avritten into the permanent body of laws 
which were drawn up by Solon, and it is idle to conjecture how 
such an order was promulgated. But the other action Avhich 
is recorded as supplementary to this first sweeping order, 
namely, the establishing of a law prohibiting loans irrl tol^ 
(Too/jLaaiv^ we should confidently expect to find in his finished 
code, and there is no doubt that our ancient authorities knew of 
it from that source. It goes without saying that the act of 
cancellation preceded tlie more extensive undertaking of re- 
modeling the Athenian constitution ; but this particular law 
may well have been published in advance and later given its 
proper place in the completed code. The act of cancellation 
would have had no more than a momentary value, if there had 

1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (v 65) reports a speech of M. Valerius Publi- 
cola ill which he refers to the fame which Athens and Solon had won by re- 
mitting the debts of the poor. No one had blamed the city for this measure nor 
called the author of it a demagogue. De Sanctis (1912, pp. 206 ff.) not only re- 
jects Androtion's theory of the Seisachtheia, but also claims that it could not have 
meant the remission of all debts : " Ripugna affatto (raltronde il credere che 
Solonc. il (juale si atteggiava a rappresentante della giustizia e in nome dellagius- 
tizia ritiutava di procedere ad una nuova divisiono del suolo, si sia permesso uii 
provvedimento cosi rivoluzionario come una plena abolizione dei debiti, prov- 
vedimeiito il (juale senza dubbio scalzava la 'base veneranda ' della gijistizia ; 
egli che nelle sue leggi dava amplissima f:u*olt4 di prestare ad interesse. E (luindi 
evidente che il legislatore non aboli i debiti, ma iinpedi la esecuzione personale e 
dicliiaro semplicemente nulle per sempre leipoteche prcse sullo persone dei citta- 
dini e sui beiii. (ili 6 che secondo lui nessuno pu6 per ragione di denaro essere 
privato della libert;\ trasmessa dagli avi, nb di (piel terreno dov'6 la sua casa col 
focolare domestico, che il ])a(lre gli ha lasciato e che egli deve rimettere ai figli ; 
onde insomma il cancellare le ipoteche era per Solone non altro che un atto di 
giustizia. S'intende che, abolite le ipoteche sulle persone e sui beni, cadevano 
con esse i crediti che n'erano guarentiti." See De Sanctis' whole discussion of 
the Seisachtheia. 



APPENDIX 3 273 

not been associated with it a law wliich was framed to prevent 
the recurrence of a situation requiring so drastic a remed}'. 

The following story is told by Aristotle (^Const. of Afh. vi). 
When Solon was on the point of proclaiming the cancellation of 
debts he communicated his purpose to certain persons belonging 
to the upper classes. These men immediately borrowed large 
sums of money and bought large tracts of land. Then when 
debts were declared void, they were left wealthy without the 
obligation of returning the money they had borrowed. This 
was the origin of the group of men who were later called Palaeo- 
pluti. According to some authorities, says Aristotle, Solon 
was privy to this plan and shared in the spoils ; but writers 
with democratic sympathies claim that it was done without 
Solon's knowledge, and Aristotle accepts their view on the 
ground that a man who had steadfastly refused the tyranny 
would not have soiled himself with so petty an affair as this. 
Plutarch (aSo/. xv. Cf. also Praee. G-er. Reip. 13, p. 807 d) 
tells the same story, adding the names of some of the men whom 
Solon acquainted with his plans — Conon, Clinias, and Hip- 
ponicus. These men won the permanent nickname Chreocopi- 
dae. He further relates that Solon had cleared himself of 
blame by immediately relinquishing the debts due to himself, 
which amounted to the sum of five talents. ^ 

It is clear both that this story could not have been trans- 
mitted in Solon's poetry and that it is precisely the sort of 
scandal which would be invented by those who were desirous of 
detracting from Solon's reputation. The milder version excul- 
pating Solon from any personal advantage was probably put 
forth by the democrats in answer to the more damaging version. 
One may guess that the families of the Palaeopluti, who are 
probably the same set of persons who are called by Lysias (xix 
49) Archaeopluti, were accused of having made their fortune in 
some crooked way, and that Conon, Clinias, and Hipponicus 

1 In other versions this sum was given as 15 talents (Polyzelus of Rhodes ap. 
Plut. Sol. xv) and 7 talents (Diog. Laert. i 45). 



274 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

were known to be the ancestors of certain prominent members 
of the set.^ 

1 Conon, Clinias, and Hipponicus were the ancestors of Conon, Alcibiades, and 
Callias, who were therefore probably reckoned among the men who were called 
Palaeopluti. The word Chreocopidae recalls the significant word Hermocopidae. 
See Busolt (1895, p. 42, footnote). 



APPENDIX 4 
THE LAWS AND THE AXONES 

If we are disposed to doubt the fact that Solon wrote laws 
we find sufficient testimony for it in his own words in ix 18 ff. 

That he himself here uses the word Oeo-fjLoik shows that any 
distinction between Oecr/JLOL and vofMot, by which the former is 
applied to the laws of Draco and the latter to the laws of 
Solon, is the invention of a later age.^ 

What is meant by the phrase Cea/jLov^; ypdcf^etv? In later 
times vofjLov 'ypd<^eLv meant " to propose a law," as y^rrj<f>La fia 
'ypd(f>€iv meant "to offer a resolution." But it is not likely 
that this technical sense is to be found in Solon's phrase. It 
cannot be supposed that in the rudimentary state of parliamen- 
tary procedure the word ypd(l)€Lv had yet acquired any technical 
sense. Furthermore, Solon is speaking of his definite accom- 
plishments : merely to have proposed laws without carrying 
them through would not have been worth recording in his 
poetic apologia pro vita sua. When he says he " wrote laws," he 
gives the reader to understand that he did something of con- 
siderable importance. We must take him at his word: ypdcfyetv 
means '' to record by incised or written characters." 

Now it should be observed that nothing is said in the sen- 
tence about the character of the laws : they are not called 
OeafjLoxs Bifcaiovf; or 6e<jp.ov<; ofjcoiov; tw KaKco re KCL'yaOw. The 
emphasis of the thought seems to lie on eypaslra rather than on 
deafiov^. The notable achievement was to draw up a written 
code rather than to conceive and promulgate certain new and 

1 For the use of the words deafids and v6/xos see Busolt (1895, p. 173, foot- 
note 2). 

275 



276 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

wise laws. The codification (he does not say the laws) was in 
the interest of both classes of citizens. ^ Undoubtedly a written 
code is the first requisite for the administration of impartial 
justice. There is no reason to believe that Draco had compiled 
the first code and that Solon had annulled all his laws excepting 
those relating to bloodshed (^Const. of Atli. vii 1; Plut. Sol. 
xvii 1). The fact is that certain laws relating to bloodshed 
and attributed to Draco were known in the fifth century, but 
that all other early laws were attributed to Solon. It is prob- 
able, therefore, that Draco had done nothing but formulate, and 
possibly record in writing, the laws relating to bloodshed. 
Hence the fiction that he had imposed the death penalty for all 
kinds of offenses. The Thesmothetae, if their office had been 
instituted before Solon's time, had probably done no more than 
record the Oea^ia which were pronounced by tlie magistrates 
when they sat in judgment {Const, of Ath. iii 4). These Oeafjua 
would serve as precedents, and the collection of them which had 
accumulated could hardly be regarded as a written code in the 
proper sense of tlie term. It remained for Solon to draw up a 
genuine code and earn the name of father of Athenian laws 
(Plat. S?/mp. 209 d). 

What was the source of the laws which Solon formed into a 
written code ? In the first place, it is clear that they could not 
have sprung a new and perfect birth from his own brain. The 
Athenians were an old community and had lived long under the 
authority of recognized, though unwritten, rules of custom. 
These rules for the life of the community could not have -been 
altogether bad ; they were unstable, indeed, and ill-defined, but 
they must have enjoyed the authority at least of the a^pacpoi 
vofjLOL of a later day.^ It was Solon's task, as a legislator pleni- 
potentiary, to grasp these unsubstantial forms of procedure, to 

^ See note on this passai^e in the commentary. 

2 That &ypa(poi vdfxoL were lield to be valid before the archonship of Euchdes 
(403 H.c.) is shown by the law which was passed at that time expressly forbid- 
ding their recognition in the future (Andocides i 86). 



APPENDIX 4 277 

embody them in precise terms, and to fix them in a permanent 
record. Neither the Athenians nor any other community would 
have tolerated a complete subversal of their veteran forms of 
procedure. Many of the laws, therefore, in the completed code 
must have been identical in spirit with customs already long in 
force. ^ 

Though we must believe that the earlier unwritten laws of 
Athens formed the core of Solon's code, we must recognize 
quite as fully the broad editorial powers with which Solon was 
intrusted. In dealing with a mass of formless rules, it would 
have been beyond Solon's ability to preserve his formulation free 
from any modification due to his own personal opinion and 
judgment, even if he had desired to do so. Though he had 
tried to do no more than write at the dictation of the past, he 
could not have avoided the necessity of choosing between con- 
flicting precedents, and his own judgments would have formed 
no inconsiderable part of his finished code. 

But we cannot suppose that Solon desired, nor that he was 
expected, merely to transcribe mechanically. He was endowed 
with dictatorial powers to take counsel for the safety of the 
state. There were abuses in plenty to be righted, and it was a 
firm belief with Solon that as abuses came by Svavo/jbta^ so peace 
and happiness came by evvofxla. He would therefore have re- 
garded it as his bounden duty both to revise old precedents that 
needed revision and to set up such new laws as were called for 
by the times, to the end that evvojxia might prevail in Athens. 

Finally, then, the code must indubitably have contained 
three kinds of laws: (1) those which were identical with laws 
or precedents previously in force ; (2) old laws modified 
or revised ; and (3) new laws for which Solon was himself 
responsible. 

1 Plut. Sol. XV 1 : d\X' 17 fx^v dpiarou r)u^ ovK i ir rjy ay e v iarpe Lav ov5i KaiPOTO/JLlav, 
{po^rjdels /XT] crvyx^as iravTCLTracn Kai rapd^as T7]p rrbXiv dcrdev^cTTepos yivqrai rod 
KaTaaTTJcraL -rrdXiv /cat avvapixbffaadai. irpbs rb apiarov. This observation is both, 
shrewd and true. 



278 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

When the important task of codification, conceived and ex- 
ecuted by Solon in the manner described, was finally completed, 
it remained to put the written laws before the world so that 
they should be accessible to all men at all times. This could 
be done only by inscribing them on tablets of wood or stone or 
metal and setting them up in a public place. 

What was the fate of these tablets and the laws inscribed 
upon them ? 

It is not to be doubted that an instrument, so serviceable 
and so hard-won, would have been jealously guarded. But we 
cannot suppose that in the tumultuous civic life of Athens, and 
in an age when reverence for the inviolability of constitutional 
law had not yet been born, the laws which were written by 
Solon could have continued in use decade after decade without 
supplement and revision. The tradition that Solon bound the 
Athenians by oath to maintain his laws unchanged for a certain 
period of time, ten years according to some (Herodotus i 29), 
one hundred years according to others (Plut. Sol. xxv 1), is a 
testimony that the ancients recognized the inevitability of 
change.^ New laws must have been written, some consistent, 
some inconsistent, with those already standing. And these laws, 
according to the new fashion of inscription, would have been 
set up on tablets by the side of the old. And so, at the end of 
the sixth century, after the rule of Pisistratus^ and his sons and 
the democratic reforms of Clisthenes, we may believe that there 
existed in Athens a body of written laws which resembled the 
code of Solon only as the man resembles the child he used to be. 
It might have been possible still for a critical investigator to 
distinguish the laws of Solon in the larger mass, and with the 
interest of an antiquarian to have restored them as a curious 

1 The inevitability of chaiifi^e and modification is further demonstrated by the 
tradition that Solon left Athens in order not to be compelled to make changes 
himself (Pint. Sol. xxv 4 ; Const, of Ath. xi). 

2 Herodotus (i 59) says that Pisistratus made no change in the d^a-fiia; but this 
is inherently improbable, and Herodotus could not have had any sure knowledge 
of the matter. 



APPENDIX 4 279 

historical document. Rut it goes without saying that this was 
not done. Men looked forward to the future, not backward to 
the past, and troubled themselves no longer with the earlier 
stages of their course. It is, indeed, possible, tliough not likely, 
that the tablets of Solon were accorded special honor and kept 
intact and apart from the tablets on which subsequent legisla- 
tion was recorded. But, on the whole, it is more than prob- 
able that at the end of the sixth century no one, even with the 
acuteness of modern scholarship, could have determined just 
what laws had been the product of Solon's own mind: they 
were lost forever in the mass of pre-Solonian unwritten 
laws which he had formulated and post-Solonian laws which 
had been passed after the institution of his code. There may 
have been, indeed, certain laws which because of their subject 
or some inherent distinguishing mark could have been safely 
attributed to him ; but in the nature of things they must have 
been very few. 

Let us now proceed with the history of Athens in the fifth 
century. Within twenty years after the beginning of the cen- 
tury Athens was overwhelmed by a catastrophe which, while it 
only served to temper the national spirit to hard steel, destroyed 
almost completely at the same time the material city and all 
that was in it. When the Athenians evacuated the city before 
the battle of Salamis, they carried with them to the island of 
Salamis and to the Peloponnesian coast much of their public and 
private property. It is not inconceivable that they saved with 
the rest the tablets on which their laws were inscribed, but it 
must be admitted that this is altogether improbable. The 
sacred objects of religious cult and the necessaries of private 
life would surely have come first ; and in the confusion and 
terror of the moment men would not have thought of the writ- 
ten laws, which could easily be replaced if the Athenians really 
survived the threat of annihilation. It is too much to assume 
that when the Athenians found themselves reestablished in their 



280 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

own city and set themselves to repair the ruin wrought by the 
Persians, they still possessed intact and in order the written 
code which had existed before the invasion. But surely they 
would have lost no time in restoring this code as best they 
could from such fragments as survived and from memor} ; the 
old laws, except those Avhich had become obsolete and inopera- 
tive, were surely inscribed again, in similar if not the same 
terms, upon tablets which, were set up in a public place to be 
used as they had been used in the past. There is no record 
that they were subjected to any sort of formal revision, but we 
cannot suppose that the lawyers of the day were restrained by 
undue reverence for the sanctity of a text from making obvious 
corrections and improvements, at any rate in those laws which 
they transcribed from memory. 

Whatever may have been the form of the written laws of 
Athens after the Persian storm had passed, it is certain that 
the old order began anew: the body of jurisprudence was still 
alive and the processes of life imply the constant death of old 
laws and the birth of new. The code was steadily transformed 
and enlarged to meet the changing requirements of the times. 
The tablets containing laws which had fallen into disuse were 
not always destroyed, but were still preserved in the archives of 
the state, to be later unearthed by antiquarians and made the 
subject of learned researches. Probably the old laws of the 
sixth century, as they had been redrafted after the battle of 
Salamis, remained fairly discernible ; but if the authentic work 
of Solon liad been practically unrecognizable before the Persian 
wars, certainly we may be sure that by the middle of the fifth 
centur}^ there was very little indeed which could be attributed 
to him with any certainty whatever. 

A hint as to the fate of some of the earlier laws is afforded 
by a fragment of the comic poet Cratinus (circa 453 B.C.) 
which is preserved by Plutarch (Sol. xxv 1): tt/^o? rod ^6\covo<; 
Koi ^pd/covTO<; olcn vvv (fypvyovai ra? Kd')(^pv<^ tol<; Kvp^eaiv. Evi- 



APPENDIX 4 281 

dently some of the tablets on which the earlier laws attributed 
to Solon and Draco were inscribed had fallen into a sad state of 
disrepair and were not preserved with any particular care.^ 

From this time on, we find the practice growing of attrib- 
uting the older laws to Solon or to Solon and Draco. Tliis 
should not surprise us or mislead us into thinking that the laws 
of Solon were actually extant as a whole and definitely recogniz- 
able. It was the universal Greek habit to attribute the great 
works of the past to definite persons without much critical re- 
gard to probability. The name of Solon came to stand for the 
body of early Athenian law. Herodotus (ii 177) and Diodorus 
(i 77, 5) report an Egyptian law which they say was borrowed 
by Solon and incorporated in the code of Athens. In the 
Clouds of Aristophanes (1187 ff.) Pheidippides pretends that the 
name of the last day of the month (evr) koI vea) was instituted 
by Solon as a relief to luckless debtors. In the Birds (1660) a 
law of Solon concerning inheritances is quoted verbatim. 
Finally, in the orators numberless laws are attributed to Solon, 
some of which may be old, but many of which bear unmistakable 
signs of later composition. 

Before we come to the orators, however, there are two decrees, 
belonging to the end of the fifth century, which should be dis- 
cussed for the light they throw on the history of Athenian laws. 

An inscription of the year 409/8 is preserved ((7. /. ^. i 61) 
which records the psephisma of a certain Xenophanes. The 
resolution of Xenophanes which was adopted and w^hich is here 
recorded was that the avajpa^el^ roiv vo/ulwv should make a copy 
of Draco's law concerning homicide and set it up before the 

1 Professor W. K. Prentice suggests that Cratiniis may be referring to a prac- 
tice similar to one which is common in Syria. The Syrian bread is made of meal 
and water without leaven. The ingredients are mixed into a paste, which is then 
spread on a sheet of metal made hot for the purpose, and is thus cooked or 
parched. The word (ppvyovai would be appropriate for such an operation. All 
this indicates that the KvpjSeis may have been made of metal and not necessarily 
of wood. Cf. Pollux viii 128 A^Xtol xa^'^o^ f'^^- ; Schol. Aristoph. Birds 1354 
K^p^eis x^-^KO.^ (xavides kt\. 



282 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

King's Stoa ; and the law itself, or part of it, is inscribed on the 
same stone immediately after the psephisma. Unfortunately 
the stone is so badly mutilated that we cannot tell where the 
original was from which the copy was made. But there is no 
question that the law was definitely believed to have been written 
by Draco. 

In the year 403, after the restoration of the democracy, there 
was a complete revision of the laws, of which we are told by 
Andocides (i 81 ff.).^ It appears that a measure was adopted 
to meet the immediate emergency, providing that a commission 
of twenty should direct the affairs of the city until definite laws 
could be established ; meantime the laws of Solon and the Oea-fjioi 
of Draco should be in force. But, Andocides continues, it was 
discovered that many persons were liable to punishment for 
offenses committed unknowingly against the laws of Solon and 
Draco because they had been ignorant of these laws. It was 
decided therefore to subject the Avhole body of laws to a careful 
scrutiny and to set up in the Stoa those laws which were finally 
passed and accepted. The psephisma of Tisamenus which 
appears in the text of Andocides, making the proposals wliich 
Andocides refers to, may be spurious or it may be authentic. 
But it adds little to what can be inferred from Andocides' OAvn 
words. It appears from all this that laws which were known 
as the laws of Solon and Draco were still on record, but that 
they had sunk into disuse and were little known, and that a 
new and official code was set up, which, though it was founded 
on the earlier laws, had been subjected to a revision so 
thoroughgoing that it was practically a new creation. Though 
the original copies of the old laws may not have been destroyed 
they could hardly be quoted thereafter as valid in legal 
disputes. 

It should now be clear what opinion we ought to hold of the 

1 The rule of the Thirty may have been as disastrous a period for the con- 
tinuity of the Athenian laws as the period of the Persian invasion itself. Cf. 
especially Schol. Aeschines i 39. 



APPENDIX 4 283 

laws quoted by the orators of the fourth century and attributed 
to Solon or Draco. It would be rash and even absurd to main- 
tain that any one of these laws is identical with any one of the 
laws written by Solon two hundred years before.^ Indeed, the 
orators themselves were probably not deceived in this matter.^ 
They attribute laws often enough to Solon and Draco, but quite 
as often they speak of "the lawgiver" without a name, or of " the 
lawgivers of those times." The name of Solon is used as the 
collective term for the legislative activity of the past,^ and is 
introduced partly through the Greek desire for a personal hero, 
partly for the purpose of reenforcing the orator's argument be- 
fore the court by the authority of the great name of the father 
of Athenian laws. 

Besides the laws which are referred to by the orators and 
those which are incorporated in the text of their speeches, a 
large number of laws attributed to Solon are to be found in 
Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius and more still may be gathered 
here and there in Greek and Roman literature. We also have 

1 The following may be noted as examples of the confusion and uncertainty" 
about laws. Diogenes Laertius (i 55) quotes a law of Solon and then adds that 
Lysias attributed it to Draco. Isocrates (xii 144) says that the laws are at 
present in a state of conf iision and full of inconsistencies ; it is impossible to tell 
at a glance which are serviceable and which are not. In Istros (frag, xxxv) 
there is an allusion to a law forbidding the export of figs, without any mention 
of its author ; elsewhere it is attributed to Solon. Schol. Aeschines i 39 says 
that the laws of Draco and Solon were destroyed (Xvfxaivea-Oai) by the Thirty ; 
later the laws which had been lost were restored and new ones were set up. 
That even the eea-fxoi were not a fixed and unchanging body of laws is shown by 
the ephebic oath in Pollux viii 106. 

2 Demosthenes (xviii 6) seems to have a clear idea of what Solon had done ; 
oi v6/xoi ovs 6 Tideis i^ dpxv^ XdXcop, eijvovs wv v/jliv Kat dTj/xoTiKds, ov fxbvov tu) ypdrj/ai 
Kvpiovs (^€To deiv elvai, dXXd /cat rw tovs diKd^ovras d/xiv/uLOK^yat. The act of writing 
them down was the great thing. In Demosthenes xxiv 142 we seem to have a 
definition of the laws of Solon : roi/s tov S6Xa>j'os v6/xovs toi>s irdXai bedoKiixaap-^vovs 
ovs ol irp&yovoc edevro. The implication is that the older laws of Athens were all 
included under the name of Solon, and that there was no real belief that they 
were all written by him, though it may have been thought that they w^ere col- 
lected by him. 

3 In [Demosthenes] Ixi 49 f. the statement is made that the laws of Solon 
are used by the greater part of the Greek world. This can only mean that the 
laws of other states were modeled upon or resembled the laws of Athens, and 
" the laws of Solon " means " the ancestral laws of democratic Athens." 



284 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

the names of a number of Greek writings now lost which must 
have been monographs on the very subject of the hiws.^ 

From this it appears that from the fourth century B.C. the 
laws of Athens received much attention from scholars. Are we 
to suppose that they had access to any authoritative source of 
information concerning the laws of Solon himself ? Is it likely 
that after the checkered career of Athenian laws during the sixth 
and fifth centuries it was possible even for scholars to discern 
the veritable laws of Solon ? Unquestionably no. We may ad- 
mit that even after the revision of the code under Euclides they 
could still have consulted the earlier records on which the new 
code was founded. But this, as we have seen, would have 
brought them very little nearer the truth. A review of the laws 
discussed by Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius, who must have 
drawn their information from Didymus and other earlier writers, 
is enough to convince the reader that they are not the work of 
a single lawgiver, but rather a collection of early laws dating 
from various times and springing from various conditions of 
society. That many of them Avere old is shown by the interest 
taken in them by the lexicographers, as well as by a passage in 
the Daitaleis of Aristophanes (fr. 222 Kock). Lysias also 
(x 15 ff.) quotes from several laws, which he attributes to Solon, 
passages containing obsolete words whose meaning he expounds. 

It appears that the older laws in Athens were recorded on 
tables called Kvpfiei^ and a^ove<;. There are several descriptions 
of these objects in the ancient authors, lexicographers, and 
scholiasts, but they are not consistent with one another. ^ Ap- 
parently no one had taken the trouble to describe them as long 
as every one knew what they were. Later some thought the 
Kvp/3€t^ and a^ove^ were identical; others distinguished them in 
various ways. It was generally agreed that an affwi^, as its 
name implies, was a contrivance which revolved on an axis, 

1 See p. 21 and the list in Sondhaiis (1909). 

2 On Kvp^eLs and &^oves see Busolt (1895, p. 290, footnote 3). 



APPENDIX 4 285 

vertical or horizontal, so that any one consulting the inscription 
could read it through without moving from liis place. Sucli a 
device as this Avould naturally have been made of wood, or it 
might even have been made of metal plates set in a wooden 
frame. But there is evidence to show that there were also re- 
volving tables of stone. 

A curious Avedge-shaped fragment of marble was found in 
Athens in 1885 which some think was part of an axon (^C.I.A. iv 
559). It is inscribed on two opposite faces, and though the in- 
scription is too much mutilated to yield any meaning whatever 
it is possible to see that on one face the writing read from the 
top to the bottom and on the other from the bottom to the top. 
The character of the letters serves to prove that the inscription 
belongs to the first half of the fifth century. Kumanudis ^ very 
plausibly conjectures that the fragment was part of a stone im- 
itation of the earlier type of wooden axones. According to his 
reconstruction, the axon was a contrivance revolving on a hori- 
zontal axis, so formed that a vertical cross-section would re- 
semble a four pointed star, thus: 




If the reader stood before this machine and turned it around as 
he read, it is easy to see why the writing should run from the 
top to the bottom on one face of each wedge and from the bot- 
tom to the top on the other. This was certainly a clumsy and 
heavy contrivance in stone, and the only reason people could 
have had for making it is that they were imitating in durable 
material a familiar and convenient wooden type. 

1 'E077^epis 'ApxaioXo7tKT7, III (1885) 215 ff. 



286 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

The only important conclusion from all this is a corrobora- 
tion of the claim previously made that there was no sure and 
continuous existence of the unmodified Solonian code from the 
beginning of the sixth century to the end of the fifth. When 
Aristotle says that the laws of Solon were immediately inscribed 
on the Kvp^ei^ and Plutarch says they were immediately in- 
scribed on a^ove<;^ they were making assertions which could not 
be supported by any real evidence. Since many of the old 
Athenian laws were in Aristotle's time still preserved on Kvp^ei^i 
and a^ove^ and since the whole body of early law was attrib- 
uted to Solon, they naturally assumed that his laws had origi- 
nally been published in this way.^ Plutarch says (^Sol. xxv 1) 
that fragments of a^ove^ were still preserved in his time, and 
there is no reason to doubt his statement. But it would be a 
piece of wild credulity to believe that these were fragments of 
axones on which the laws of Solon had been originally inscribed. 

The general conclusion is as follows. The laws attributed to 
Solon by the orators, by Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius, and by 
other ancient writers belonged to the body of ancient Athenian 
law which was still in existence at the end of the fifth century. 
This body of law was of two centuries' growth, and was the 
creation of many minds and of many times. Incorporated in it 
were no doubt some of the laws written by Solon, though prob- 
ably in a greatly modified form. It is not only wrong to 
assume that all laws attributed to Solon are actually by his 
hand unless the contrary can be proved, but it is also rash and 
uncritical to admit the Solonian authorship of any law unless its 
authenticity can be shown by indubitable proofs. 

1 riutarch {Sol. xix 3) quotes the exact words of the ei^jhth law of the thir- 
teenth axon, which begins 'Ari/xiov 6aoi Ati/ulol ijaav irplv ^ 26Xa;j'a dp^ai. The 
reference to a definite axon does not prove that this is a genuine law of Solon, 
but simply that it was one of the ancient laws recorded on the axones which 
were in existence at the end of the fifth century. P>en the name of Solon does 
not prove its authenticity : indeed the law reads as if it were passed at some time 
subsecpient to Solon in the interest of the descendants of Athenians who had been 
disfranchised before the archonship of Solon. 



APPENDIX 5 

CHANGES IN WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND CURRENCY 
AND IN THE CALENDAR 

The principal and only direct evidence for the reforms 
which Solon is supposed to have introduced in the Athenian 
currency and in the system of weights and measures, is to be 
found in the two following passages. ^ 

Const, of Ath. x: ''These, then, would seem to be the demo- 
cratic innovations which were embraced in the Solonian code. 
Equally democratic in their nature were the cancellation of 
debts, which was effected before the legislation, and the en- 
larged standard in weights, measures, and currency, which was 
introduced afterwards. Under Solon the measures were made 
larger than the Pheidonian measures, and the mina, which had 
previously been equivalent in weight to seventy drachmae, was 
brought up to the full standard by the addition of the necessary 
thirty. The coins of early times were two-drachma pieces. 
Solon also established a system of weights in correspondence 
with the coinage, so that sixty-three minae made a talent; and 
this increase of three minae was distributed proportionately 
among the stater and other divisions of the talent." 

Pint. Sol. XV : " Some writers, of whom Androtion is one, 
say that the welcome relief which came to the poorer classes, 
was effected, not by a cancellation of debts, but by a reduction 
in the rate of interest, and that they gave the name Seisachtheia 
to this public benefaction and to two other acts which accom- 

1 On the reform in the weights, measures, and currency, see Busolt (1895, 
pp. 262-264); Seeck (1904, p. 181); Lehmann-Haupt (1906, p. 307, footnote 2); 
De Sanctis (1912, pp. 218 ff.); Beloch (1913, pp. 333 ff.). 

287 



288 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

panied it, the enlargement of the standards of measurement and 
the settlement of monetary values. Previously the mina had 
consisted of seventy-three drachmae ; Solon ordained that it 
should consist of one hundred. The result of this was that 
the nominal value of the coins paid in discharge of a debt re- 
mained the same, but the real value was lowered ; those who 
had debts to pay were greatly benefited, while at the same time 
the creditors suffered no loss." 

Other evidence for early Attic currency and early systems 
of weights and measures is to be derived from scattered state- 
ments in ancient literature and especially from extant coins and 
metallic weights. It will be necessary first to discover just 
what Androtion and Aristotle understood these changes to be, 
and then to inquire whether their statements are in accord 
with the knowledge which we gain from other sources. 

We observe, first of all, that there is a marked similarity be- 
tween the two passages. The -same words are used and the in- 
crease in the number of drachmae in a mina is described in the 
same way. It is fair to assume that Plutarch is quoting, in 
part at least, the exact words of Androtion, and that Androtion 
served as one of the sources of Aristotle. But, at the same 
time, there are striking divergences. Androtion declares that 
the reforms which he describes were an essential part of the 
Seisachtheia; Aristotle says explicitly that they were introduced 
even later than the publication of the laws. According to 
Androtion, the number of drachmae in a mina before the change 
was 73 ; according to Aristotle it Avas 70. Androtion speaks of 
an increase only in measures ; Aristotle extends the increase to 
weights and coins. Aristotle adds details which are not in Plu- 
tarch's quotation from Androtion. The definiteness of the 
statements in both authors is sufficient to show that they were 
writing of something about which they believed they had defi- 
nite knowledge, and they are evidently writing about the same 
thing. The questions then present themselves : First, what 



APPENDIX 5 289 

were the facts about the weights, measures, and currency which 
they are attempting to convey ? Second, whence did they learn 
these facts ? Third, how can we account for the differences be- 
tween the two reports ? The attempt to answer these questions 
may lead us, for a moment, rather far from Solon and his poli- 
cies, but it is necessary as a preliminary to a proper under- 
standing of Solon's part in the matter. 

How, then, could Androtion, and Aristotle after him, know 
anything about the precise nature of changes made by Solon in 
the first decade of the sixth century ? We think first, as usual, 
of Solon's own poems. But there is no trace of evidence on 
this subject in the fragments that remain, and we must confess 
that Solon would have scarcely imposed on his Muse the drudg- 
ery of describing monetary and metrological reforms. Were 
the new regulations written into the laws and inscribed on the 
Axones ? Aristotle says plainly that whatever was done touch- 
ing weights, measures, and currency, was done after the codi- 
fication of the laws was complete. Where else shall we turn ? 
Wiicn these two sources fail us, we must be very cautious indeed 
about accepting the statements of the biographers. It is not 
beyond the range of possibility that there should have been 
preserved upon stone the standards of measurement employed at 
an earlier day ; there may have been weights of stone or metal, 
preserved as curiosities ; there were undoubtedly coins which 
had been minted two or three hundred years before Androtion's 
time. If all of these earlier standards were regarded as pre- 
Solonian, and if the standards of Androtion's day were regarded 
as the result of Solon's reforms, it was easy, by simple calcula- 
tiong, to determine exactly what the Solonian reforms were. 
We must conclude, then, that Androtion derived his exact 
information from an examination of the standards of weight, 
measure, and currency which prevailed in Athens and else- 
where in his own day, and of such ancient coins and weights as 
were preserved in private ownership or in temple treasures. 



290 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Let us now look more closely at the statements which are 
actually made about the changes. 

According to Plutarch's quotation, the mina had first con- 
sisted of 73 drachmae and was then increased to 100 drachmae. 
Does this imply that drachmae were reduced in weight or that 
the mina was increased ? Obviously the former, because An- 
drotion claimed that the change would be of advantage to 
debtors. We may, therefore, draw up the following table : 
73 old drachmae = 1 standard mina 
100 new drachmae = 1 standard mina 
60 standard minae = 1 standard talent 
4380 old drachmae = 1 standard talent 

Aristotle speaks of an increase in the currency. This in- 
crease must be either in the unit of weight or in the number of 
coins. If Aristotle holds the same view as Androtion, he must 
mean increase in the number of coins. Later he says that one 
talent will be equal to 63 minae. But a talent of 63 minae is 
quite unheard of, and unless we are compelled to recognize such 
a talent here we should be glad to explain the matter in another 
way. Besides, Aristotle himself, in the last sentence, tacitly 
assumes that the talent contains only 60 minae. Let us assume 
then what he means is that a talent, which consists of 60 new 
minae of 100 drachmae, is equal to 63 old minae of 70 drachmae. 
This may be presented in tabular form thus : 

70 old drachmae = 1 old mina 
100 new drachmae = 1 new mina 

60 new minae = 1 standard talent 

63 old minae = 1 standard talent 

4410 old drachmae = 1 standard talent 

Now, since 1 talent = 60x100 or 6000 drachmae, 

we may write 

4410 old drachmae = 6000 new drachmae 
or IS^ old drachmae = 100 new drachmae 



APPENDIX 5 291 

Here, then, we have substantial agreement between the 
two reports. Only, Aristotle allows an increase in the weight 
of the mina and implies an increase in the weight of the 
talent, while Androtion confines the change to a decrease in 
the weight of the drachma. ^ In order to see which theory 
of the change was the correct one, let us turn to external 
evidence. 

In Greece in the sixth century there were two principal 
systems of currency, the Aeginetan and the Euboean. Coins 
of the Aeginetan standard, whether they were minted in Aegina 
or elsewhere, were in use throughout the Peloponnese, in the 
greater part of the mainland of Greece, and in the islands of the 
southern Aegean. Coins of the Euboean standard were current 
in the cities of Euboea and in their colonial domain, that is, the 
Chalcidice, Sicily, and Italy. It was formerly supposed that 
these two systems differed in the unit of weight, but that in 
both alike a talent consisted of 60 minae and a mina of 100 
drachmae. But we know now, from an inscription discovered 
at Delphi, that the Aeginetan mina consisted of 70 drachmae. ^ 
Furthermore, it is now fairly certain that the silver mina was of 
a fixed value throughout Greece until the time of Alexander 
and that the Aeginetan, Euboean, and other systems of currency 
differed only in the division of the mina. We hear of Aeginetan 
drachmae and staters but not of Aeginetan silver minae and 
silver talents, which were identical with Euboean silver minae 
and silver talents. There was an Aeginetan commercial mina 
which differed from the Aeginetan and Euboean silver mina. 
But in Athens the commercial weights were brought into corre- 
spondence with the coin weights, as Aristotle was aware. As 

1 This method of reconcihng the two passages is due to De Sanctis (1912, 
pp. 222 ff.). For the general subject see Hultsch, Griechische und romische 
Metrologie (ed. 2), This contains the ancient evidence and references to modern 
works which had appeared before the date of pubhcation. For later studies of 
the Athenian currency see Head, Historia Numorum, ed. 2, and for systems of 
weights, Pernice, Griechische Gewichte, Berhn, 1894. 

2 For further proof see Beloch (1913, p. 336). 



292 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

the Aeginetan mina was divided into 70 drachmae, so the 
P^uboean was divided into 100. 

Now it seems practically certain that both Androtion and 
Aristotle are describing a transition from the Aeginetan cur- 
rency to the Euboean. Scholars had reached this same conclu- 
sion even before the discovery of the Delphic inscription. We 
know that the permanent Attic standard, which was widely 
adopted throughout the Greek world, was the same as the Eu- 
boean. And we must conclude from the passages now before us 
that Athens in earlier times had employed the Aeginetan stand- 
ard. Aristotle seems to be correct in the figure 70, but wrong 
in the value of the mina ; Androtion, conversely, gives the 
wrong figure 73, and keeps the mina at a fixed value. And yet 
they find almost the same number of drachmae in a talent. 
These irregularities have not yet been satisfactorily explained. 
The following explanation, which is offered by Beloch, is plau- 
sible. Androtion gave 73J as the number of old drachmae in a 
mina, deriving this figure from the weight of Aeginetan 
drachmae (or didrachms) current in his time or from the rate of 
exchange. Plutarch in quoting dropped the fraction. Aris- 
totle read Androtion and misunderstood him, thinking that the 
mina and talent had been increased in weight, the mina from 
73.1 to 100 drachmae, the talent from 60 x 73i- or 4J:10 to 6000 
drachmae. But Aristotle knew that the Aeginetan mina was 
divided into 70, not 73|^ drachmae. So, in order to correct 
Androtion's statement, he said that the mina was raised from 
70 to 100 drachmae, and the talent from 60 minae to 63 (old) 
minae. This gave him the same result — a talent of 4410 old 
drachmae. 

Next Aristotle says that the coins of early times were two- 
drachma pieces. This statement is made because the standard 
Attic coin, possibly from the very beginning of coinage in 
Athens, was the tetradrachm. Hut does lie mean that the di- 
drachm was in use before Solon's time and that Solon introduced 



APPENDIX 5 293 

the tetradraclim; or that the coins in use for a number of years 
after the Solonian reforms were didrachms ? We cannot say. 
There are plenty of Aeginetan didrachms extant and plenty of 
Euboean didrachms. There are no coins which can be definitely 
assigned to Attica earlier than the tetradrachms, and it is not 
known when coins were first struck in Attica. 

So much for the currency. What was done in the matter 
of the measures ? Both Aristotle and Androtion assert that 
they were enlarged, and Aristotle adds that they were made 
larger than the Pheidonian measures (for the value of the Phei- 
donian measures, see Beloch, 1913, pp. 348, 349), which, he 
implies, were previously in use in Athens. Now concerning the 
relation between Athenian and Pheidonian measures Aristotle 
could not have been wrong, because the Pheidonian measures 
were still in use in some parts of Greece in his day, and it was 
a simple matter to compare them with the Athenian measures. 
It was formerly supposed that the Pheidonian and Aeginetan 
measures were identical ; but since the Aeginetan measures 
were larger than the Athenian, they were unquestionably 
larger then the Pheidonian. Whether the Pheidonian meas- 
ures were actually in use in Athens in early times is quite 
uncertain ; Aristotle probably had no means of discovering 
the truth. 

If we review the results of this discussion, we see that Solon 
was credited with the introduction into Athens of the Euboean 
custom of dividing the silver mina into 100 drachmae. He also 
established a system of commercial weights which was in corre- 
spondence with the coin weights, ^.e., a market mina was iden- 
tical with a silver mina and a market talent with a silver talent. 
Larger market talents, we know, were also in use, but they too 
belonged to the same system, being equal to one and one half or 
two times the silver talent. The Athenian measures, which 
were the same as the Euboean measures, were also in corre- 
spondence with the weights, as follows: 



294 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

1 ft. =297-298 mm. 
1 medimnos = twice the cube of the ft. = 52.4 1. 
1 metretes = 1^ times the cube of the ft. =39.3 1. 
1 talent (1st) = the water-weight of the cube of the ft. 

= 26.2 kg. 
1 talent (2d) = the water-weight of the metretes. 
1 talent (3d) = the water-weight of the medimnos. 

Before the introduction of this complete system, we are 
told that the Athenians used the Aeginetan coinage, presumably 
the Aeginetan weights, and the Pheidonian measures. The 
change was evidently a great step forward in the direction of 
orderliness and convenience. This may have been its only pur- 
pose. But there is undoubtedly something significant in the 
fact that the old order was Aeginetan and Peloponnesian, while 
the new was Euboean and Ionian. Aegina and Athens were 
inveterate enemies. Chalcis and Eretria were the friends of 
Athens. Scholars have seen, therefore, a shrewd stroke of 
policy in the change (see U. Koehler, Mitth. d. arch. Inst. X, 
1885, 151 ff.). The Chalcidice, Sicily, and Italy were under 
the Euboean influence, and Athens could extend her commerce 
to those regions far more successfully if she adopted their stand- 
ards of weight and coinage. In return for their timber and 
grain, Athens could send them oil and manufactured goods. 
These are sound reasons for the change and they are far more 
plausible than the reason which Androtion offered and which 
must have been only a guess. These reasons might have been 
in the mind of a statesman like Solon who had had experience 
in trade. But is there anything to show that they were really 
the personal reasons of an economic reformer, and not simply 
the impersonal causes which grew out of the natural economic 
development of the state ? 

It has been the liabit in ancient and modern times to call 
the system of weights and measures which was in use in Athens 
throughout the great period of her history, the Solonian system. 



APPENDIX 5 295 

The psephisma of Tisamenus quoted by Andocides {Myst. 83 
TToXtreveo-OaL ^AOrjvaiov^; Kara ra rrdrpca, vofioL^ 8e xPV^^^^ "^^^^ 
SoXojz^o? ical fxerpoL^ Kol araOfjLol<;) refers to the hxws of Solon and 
his weights and measures. But the consideration of possible 
sources of Androtion and Aristotle shoAved clearly enough that 
there was nothing more tangible than tradition to connect the 
name of Solon with the changes which actually took place. It 
was evidently the Athenian practice to ascribe to Solon the 
system of weights, measures, and currency just as they ascribed 
to him any law which could not be ascribed to any one else. 
That Solon did not really do what they thought he did, seems 
likely on the following grounds : 

1. Since there was actually a change, it was inevitable that 
it should be attached to the greatest available name, just as the 
earliest coinage of Athens was attached to Theseus, and a 
system of weights and measures to Pheidon of Argos. 

2. It is much more likely that such a change should come 
about gradually, to meet new commercial needs, than that it 
should be effected with the definite purpose of bringing about a 
commercial change. 

3. There would have been no great advantage for Athens 
in changing from the Aeginetan to the Euboean system. If 
Athens was commercially at a disadvantage in competition with 
Aegina, she would have been equally at a disadvantage in com- 
petition with Chalcis and Eretria. 

4. It seems hardly likely that Solon could by formal decree 
have effected a change from one system of weights and measures 
to another, unless the change had really been working itself out 
naturally for some time; and if this was the case, Solon de- 
serves no credit for the change. There were no machines or 
dies of standard size to interfere with a natural transfer from 
one system to the other. When trade had once been established 
with countries of the Euboean domain, it required no extraor- 
dinary statesmanship to provide for the coining of money which 



296 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

would serve the new needs. The thing could be done on the 
motion of one man as well as another. The only effective form 
of arbitrar}^ action would have been the actual issue of coins of 
the new standard. I>ut there is no certainty that any coins of 
any kind were minted in Athens till after Solon's time. 

On these grounds it must be concluded that the Solonian 
authorship of the reforms in the system of weights, measures, 
and currency is far too uncertain to justify us in letting it 
weigh in the balance in our judgment of the man and his career. 

The Solonian authorship of the changes attributed to him by 
Aristotle has already been looked upon with suspicion by Otto 
Seeck. But his discussion includes much that is fanciful, with 
unjustified assumptions leading to unjustified conclusions. 

Plutarch attributes to Solon certain changes in the Athenian 
calendar. " Observing," he says (^Sol. xxv, Perrin's transla- 
tion), "the irregularity of the month, and that the motion of the 
moon does not always coincide with the rising and setting of the 
sun, but that often she overtakes and passes the sun on the same 
day, he ordered that day to be called the Old and New, assigning 
the portion of it which preceded the conjunction to the expiring 
month, and the remaining portion to the month that was just be- 
ginning. . . . After the twentieth he did not count the days by 
adding them to twenty, but by subtracting them from thirty, on 
a descending scale, like the waning of the moon." This is ob- 
viously an invention to explain the two features of the calendar 
which are mentioned. Such things as these would not have found 
a place in any record, and there is no way, so far as we can see, by 
which Plutarch or his sources could liave actually known that 
Solon made such innovations. The peculiarities, for which an 
origin was sought, were more likely the result of popular habit. 
The attribution of them to Solon may rest entirely on the 
fooling of Pheidippides in the Clouds of Aristophanes (1187 ff.), 
who claims that the evr] koL vea was devised by Solon as a popu- 
lar measure to provide a respite for men who were threatened 
with a lawsuit. 



APPENDIX 6 

TRAVELS 

The evidence for Solon's travels is as follows : (1) that he 
went abroad after his archonship : Herodotus i 29 ; Const, of 
Ath. xi, xiii ; Pint. Sol. xxv ; (2) that he went abroad because 
of the threatened tyranny of Pisistratus : Diog. Laert. i 50 ; 
Schol. Plat. Rep. x 599 e ; Schol. Dem. xlv 64 ; (3) that he 
Yisited Ugi/pt : Herodotus i 29 ; Plat. Tim. 21 e; Const, of Ath. 
xi ; Plut. Sol. xxvi ; Plut. de Is. et Os. 10, 354 e ; Diog. Laert. 
i 50 ; Schol. Plat. loc. cit. Cyprus : Herodotus v 113 ; Plut. Sol. 
xxvi; Diog. Laert. i 50; Schol. Plat. loc. cit.; Schol. Dem. 
loc. cit. Cilicia: Diog. Laert. i 51 , Schol. Plat. loc. cit.; Schol. 
Dem. loc. cit. Miletus: Plut. aS'o^. vi. Sardis : Herodotus i 29; 
Diodorus ix 2, 26 ; Plut. Sol. xxvii ; Plut. quomodo adulator 15, 
58 e ; Diog. Laert. i 50 ; Schol. Plat. loc. cit. 

Did he go abroad at all ? 

It is a familiar fact that foreign travel is often included in 
the ancient biographies of distinguished men, and that by this 
means meetings and interviews with distinguished foreigners 
were explained. One is inclined to suspect, therefore, that the 
travels of Solon were invented, partly for their own sake, 
partly to account for the interviews with Croesus and Thales, 
Consequently evidence from his own poems, direct or indirect, 
must be sought. 

1. Aristotle's words in Const, of Ath. xi sound as if they were 
a paraphrase of statements made by Solon himself : '' he went 
to Egypt, partly for the purpose of trade, partly for sight- 
seeing, saying that he would not return for ten years, and giv- 

297 



298 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

ing as his reason his belief that it was not right for him to stay 
and explain his laws, but that every one should do what was 
prescribed." Other reasons are added by Aristotle which he 
manifestly gathered from Solon's own writings. It is not im- 
probable, therefore, that Solon wrote a poem in which he dealt 
with the conditions in Athens following his legislation and 
announced his determination to go abroad for ten years, for 
business and pleasure, and in particular to visit Egypt. There 
is nothing to prove the existence of such a poem. These several 
features had appeared previously in Herodotus, viz., an absence 
of ten years, sight-seeing as a motive, Egypt as a destination. 
The motive of trade is added by Aristotle with some emphasis, 
as if he had read Herodotus' words and felt that they were 
inadequate as a description of the occupations of Solon during 
his travels. The three features supplied by Herodotus might 
well be inventions : the number ten agrees with the number of 
years during which, according to Herodotus, the laws were to 
remain in force ; sight-seeing is an easily invented motive for 
travel in the case of one of the Wise Men ; Egypt was the 
place to which all wise men resorted. The whole case, there- 
fore, hangs on the accuracy of Aristotle's words, " saying that 
he would not return for ten years " : either this statement was 
found in a poem, or it was inferred from the tradition. This 
path, therefore, does not bring us to any sure evidence. 

2. Plutarch states that Solon went to Egypt and "spent 
some time, as he himself says, * at the outpouring of the Nile, 
hard by the Canobic shore.' " Does this mean that Solon said 
he spent some time in Egypt ? Or is it Plutarch who says that 
he spent some time in a place which somewhere in his poems he 
describes in the words quoted? A literal interpretation of 
Plutarch's statement supports the former ; but we cannot be 
sure that he did not mean the latter. If the first alternative is 
the true one, it would appear that Plutarch is quoting from a 
poem written after the visit to Egypt, and in that case it could 



APPENDIX 6 299 

not be the poem which might have served as the source for 
Aristotle, unless Aristotle too derived his information from a 
poem written after Solon's visit to Egypt and not from one 
written before. Now since Solon might easily have written 
the line which Plutarch quotes without ever having left Athens, 
we are again left without any sure evidence. 

3. Herodotus states that Solon visited Philocyprus in Cyprus 
and that in an elegiac poem (eV eireai) he spoke in the highest 
terms of that prince. Here we have a definite reference to a 
poem by Solon. Can we believe that Herodotus learned of the 
visit to Cyprus in this poem ? Let us turn to Plutarch's ac- 
count of the matter. After describing what Solon is supposed 
to have done in Cyprus, Plutarch continues : " Solon himself 
makes mention of this consolidation. In his elegies, namely, he 
addresses Philocyprus, and says," — here follows xxv. It can 
hardly be doubted that this quotation is a portion, probably the 
close, of the very poem referred to by Herodotus. Without 
the evidence of Herodotus, we might be tempted to think that 
Plutarch's quotation was a forgery based on the legend of a 
visit to the town of Soli in Cyprus. But with the mutual cor- 
roboration of Herodotus and Plutarch, we may safely assert 
that Solon visited Cyprus at any rate. 

The question, then, whether Solon went abroad at all, must 
be answered in the affirmative. 

Where did he go? 

Since the fact of his travels has been established, it is rea- 
sonable to believe that the literal interpretation of Plutarch's 
statement which was quoted above should be accepted : Solon 
himself said that he spent some time in Egypt. That he went 
to Egypt before he went to Cyprus, is probable from the fact 
that in xxv he seems to contemplate a direct return to Athens. 
Herodotus says that Solon visited the court of Amasis in Egypt. 
But this is chronologically quite improbable since the reign of 



300 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Amasis fell between 569 and 525, and Solon was almost cer- 
tainly at home again in Athens before the beginning of his 
reign. In ii 177 Herodotus says that Solon derived his law 
against idleness from a law of Amasis. 

It has been shown that he went to Cyprus. Here, accord- 
ing to Plutarch (^Sol. xxvi), he persuaded Philocyprus to move 
his city from an unfavorable location on a height to a more ad- 
vantageous situation in the plain, and assisted him in the 
reorganization of the city. Out of gratitude to Solon, Philo- 
cyprus changed the name of the city from Aipeia to Soli. 
Where could Plutarch have learned these facts ? Either from 
Solon's poem or from the record of some Cyprian tradition. He 
himself quotes the fragment of Solon's poem as evidence for 
Solon's reorganization of the city (crui/ot/ctcr/zo?) ; but the only 
thing in the way of evidence afforded by the poem is the word 
oIklo-^io^ itself, which does not necessarily imply a reorganization 
of the city under Solon's guidance. If, therefore, Plutarch had 
the whole poem before him, it is fair to conclude that he could 
find no better evidence than the passage he quotes. He may, 
of course, have simply copied the fragment from his source ; 
but it is more than likely that the quotation was made in the 
source for the same purpose. It is more than likely, then, 
that there was no real evidence for Plutarch's statements in the 
poem itself. That a Cyprian tradition is at the bottom of 
the thing is indicated by Plutarch's preliminary statement 
that the city had been founded by Demophon, the son of 
Theseus. It looks as if an account of the KTi(ji<^ of the city, of 
the familiar type, lay at the back of the whole story. If there 
had been any interesting information in the poem, it would have 
been natural for Herodotus to mention it in the passage where 
he alludes to the poem. If tlie story depends on a Cyprian 
tradition, we cannot accept it as true. It may^ indeed, be true; 
but it is too easy to see how a tradition like this could have 
originated without any real foundation in truth, for us to accept 



APPENDIX 6 301 

it as genuinel}" historical. The nucleus of the tradition may be 
found in the following. (1) The similarity between the name 
of Solon and the name of the city of Soli. It cannot be sup- 
posed that the city was actually named for Solon any more than 
Soli in Cilicia ; the name would not take this form but would 
probably be Soloneia. Furthermore, Solon refers to the people 
of Soli, the ^6\loi^ in a way which would be a little unbecoming 
if the city had just been named for him. (2) The existence of 
the name Soli and the name Aipeia side by side for the same com- 
munity. Aipeia was attached to an old abandoned settlement 
on the hill and may have been a Greek translation of an earlier 
Semitic name. (3) Solon's fame as an administrator and legis- 
lator. (4) The record in Solon's own poem of his actual visit 
to Philocyprus. The tradition, therefore, is untrustworthy ; and 
the poem probably conveyed no definite information. 

All that we can safely infer from the poem and from He- 
rodotus and Plutarch is that Solon sojourned for some time 
with Philocyprus, the young king of Soli, in Cyprus, and that a 
warm mutual regard grew up between them. Considering So- 
lon's recent legislation and his hatred of the tyranny, it is 
reasonable to suppose that he would not have admired Philo- 
cyprus if he had not found him an enlightened and high-minded 
ruler, and he may have done something to strengthen him in his 
policy of justice and benevolence. 

The reports of his visits to Soli in Cilicia, to Miletus and to 
Sardis may be definitely rejected as legendary. The visit to Cili- 
cia was invented because of the similarity between the name of 
Solon and the name of the city; the visit to Miletus was invented 
for the sake of the interview with Thales, which has no historical 
foundation; and the visit to Sardis Avas invented in order to 
bring about the interview with Croesus which is equally 
apocryphal. Of course it cannot be denied that Solon may 
have visited all these places ; indeed a visit to Miletus would 
have been most natural. But we have no real knowledge of it. 



302 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

When did he go abroad ? 

There are three possibilities : before his archonship, when 
he was engaged in trade ; within a year or two after his ar- 
chonship; or just before the establishment of the tyranny of 
Pisistratus. 

1. Herodotus states that the son of Philocyprus perished 
in battle against the Persians in 498 B. c. Supposing he was 
as old as sixty at this time, he must have been born not earlier 
than 558. If the father was as old as sixty at the time of the 
son's birth, he would have been born in 618. He must have 
been at least 25 at the time of Solon's visit, which would then 
have occurred in 593 at the very earliest. Since extreme figures 
have been employed in this calculation, it is safe to say that the 
visit must have taken place after the archonship. This disposes 
of the first of the three possibilities. 

2. Now if Solon had left Athens just before the establish- 
ment of the tyranny of Pisistratus, he must have been a very 
old man. In the few years of life remaining to him, it is not 
likely that he could have been so far reconciled to Pisistratus 
as to speak cheerfully of a happy return to his fatherland. Yet 
this is just what he does in xxv. The late date is probably to 
be rejected : it may have originated in the legend of Solon's 
death and burial in Cyprus, which is practically contradicted by 
the poem ; in the belief that Solon, the stout opponent of 
tyrants, must have been hated by Pisistratus ; and in the effort 
to remove the chronological impossibility of the interview with 
Croesus, which was recognized before Plutarch. 

We must conclude, therefore, that Solon's travels fell early 
in the interval between his archonship and the accession of 
Pisistratus. 



APPENDIX 7 
RELATIONS WITH PISISTRATUS 

The evidence upon which we are to determine the character 
of the relations between Solon and Pisistratus is as follows: 
Arist. Const, of Ath. xiv; Diodorus ix 4, ix 20, xix 1; Pint. 
Sol. xxix f., an sent 21, 794 f. ; Diog. Laert. i 49 ff. ; Aelian 
V. H. viii 16 ; Aul. Gell. xvii 21, 4 ; Schol. Plat. Rep. x 599 e; 
Schol. Dem. xlv 64. 

Certain features in these several accounts are manifestly 
legendary. Such is the story of Solon's claim to be wiser than 
some and braver than others ; the story that he put on his full 
armor, or placed his arms before his door, and either called upon 
his fellow-citizens to join him in the defense of their liberties 
or at least proclaimed that he had himself done his utmost; the 
story, in its various forms, of Solon's reply when Pisistratus asked 
him what gave him confidence to oppose his plans ; the story 
that Solon compared the machinations of Pisistratus with the 
wiles of Odysseus; the '^ famous saying" that it would have 
been easier for the Athenians to prevent the tyranny while it 
was in preparation, but now it was a greater and more glorious 
task to uproot and destroy it when it was already full grown. 
These things cannot be accepted as historical, because it is alto- 
gether improbable that they should have been recorded in 
Solon's poems. 

What remains in the ancient accounts ? That Solon op- 
posed the request of Pisistratus for a bodyguard; that he tried 
to turn Pisistratus from his purposes; that he tried to persuade 
the people to overthrow the tyrant before he became strong; 



304 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

that in the end Pisistratus treated Solon with consideration and 
made him his counselor. The last of these statements could 
hardly have been based upon a poem; it was probably a con- 
clusion drawn from the well-known mildness of Pisistratus' 
rule, his preservation of the established laws, and the absence of 
any tradition that he had treated Solon harshly. The other 
statements may have rested upon some real evidence. But it 
should be observed that they could easily be invented on the 
basis of the poems in which in general terms Solon had pro- 
claimed the insidious dangers of tyranny, and of Solon's well- 
known hatred of the tyrannical form of government. 

There is practical unanimity among the ancient authors that 
xiii and xiv (see the Testimonia for these fragments) Avere 
concerned with the tyranny of Pisistratus, and that xiii was 
written before, and xiv after, his usurpation. 

If we accept the form in which these poems are given by 
Diodorus (as we are justified in doing), we observe, in the first 
place, that there is nothing to show whether each of these poems 
is complete in itself or whether they were parts of longer poems. 
In the poems as we have them there is no allusion to Pisistratus. 

xiii seems to be made up entirely of general statements. 
Certainly the sentences with ireXerat, jLyveTai, and ean are 
universal in their application; oWurat^ eireaev (a gnomic aorist), 
and xpl sound as if they too were universal. If eireaev were a 
normal narrative aorist, the sentence would mean that Athens 
was already in the power of a tyrant ; but all the authors hold 
that this was written before the tyranny ; therefore they at 
any rate must have taken eireaev as a gnomic aorist. Further- 
more, the emphasis in the sentence manifestly lies in et? fiovdp- 
^ov . . . hovXoavvrjv, whereas if eireaev were particular, the 
emphasis sliould be on uLSpeirj. Tlie poem must have been 
written at a moment when certain men in the city were acquir- 
ing undue power and influence, and the people, blind to the 
danger threatening their own freedom and moved by admiration 



APPENDIX 7 305 

for the men in whom the danger lay, were even disposed to in- 
crease their power. When did this danger threaten ? Certainly 
not before Solon's archonship, because then the people had no 
freedom which could be imperiled. The poem must refer, 
therefore, to conditions subsequent to the archonship ; but 
there is nothing to justify us in being more precise. 

From xiv we learn that the people have already been de- 
prived of some measure of freedom by the men Avhom they have 
themselves raised to power. This result is due to their own 
blindness towards the machinations of these ambitious men. 
The plural tovtov; is significant. This could hardly have been 
used if Pisistratus had already made himself sole master of 
Athens. The men referred to must have been unscrupulous 
demagogues, but more than this we cannot say.^ 

xiii sounds as if it were written at an earlier stage in the 
development of Athenian politics than xiv ; but at the same 
time it must be admitted that xiii could easily form a part of 
the poem containing xiv. Verses 5-8 of xiv are as general in 
their intention as the whole of xiii. It should be remembered, 
moreover, that Plutarch quotes verses 5-7 of xiv for the period 
before the usurpation. 

There is nothing in the poems as we have them to connect 
them with the usurpation of Pisistratus. What there may 
have been in the portions which are lost or in other poems, we 
cannot tell. But the single indication offered by the plural 
TovTov^ is enough to make us suspicious of the judgment of the 
ancient authors. 

xxxvi shows clearly that Solon had been called mad because 
he claimed to see more than the people in general saw ; and 
that he was confident of the vindication of his accuracy. This 
might well be a quotation from a poem proclaiming a threat- 

1 Beloch (1913, p. 353) refers tovtovs -qv^-qaaTe pv/xara d6vT€s to PisistratiLs' 
bodyguard. Since Solon refers to dovXoavvrj as past, these lines, he says, must 
have been written after the expulsion of Pisistratus. 



306 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

ened usurpation. It might even be a part of the poem to which 
xiii and xiv belonged, supposing they were drawn from the 
same poem. Tliere is nothing to prove that the couplet belongs 
to this period ; but Diogenes Laertius' quotation of it here 
makes it more than probable. 

In the end we must conclude that there is no real proof of 
the traditional reports of Solon's opposition to the usurpation 
of Pisistratus.^ But w^e can say positively that the Athenians 
were threatened with tyranny by various men (cf . tovtou?) after 
the time of Solon's archonship and that Solon stoutly opposed 
it. It is easy to see in Aristotle's account of the decade after 
the archonship ( Const, of Ath. xiii f .) that tliere may well have 
been many abortive attempts at a tyranny before Pisistratus 
was finally successful. But though it may not be possible to 
connect Solon's name and Solon's poems with any definite 
events, the poems nevertheless reveal the mind of the man dur- 
ing these troubled years. It is impossible to say whether the 
occasion of the poems preceded or followed Solon's travels. He 
must have remained in Athens long enough after his legislation 

1 On the relations of Solon and Pisistratus see Busolt (1895, pp. 299, 300, 
and 314, 315). Von Stern (1913, p. 437) concludes that the statements about 
Aristion's proposal to give Pisistratus a bodyguard of 50 men went back to the 
Attic chronicle. "Der Atthidograph, der zuerst diese Angabe gebracht hat, 
muss sich dabei auf vollstandig authentisches Material gestutzt, das Protokoll der 
Volksversammlung selbst eingesehen haben." Then he asserts that there could 
have been no doubt that Solon opposed this proposal. "Esist ein geradezu 
zwingender Schluss, den ein neuer Historiker ganz ebenso machen wiirde, wie 
der alte Chronist, dass Solon bei seiner Kampfesfreudigkeit gegen diesen Antrag 
gesprochen habe. . . . Dass Solon bald nach der Begriindung dieser Herrschaf t 
im Archonjahr des Hegesistratos ruhig in Athen gestorben und mit alien Ehren 
bestattet war, hat der Chronist wohl einem Beschluss iiber die Beerdigung auf 
Staatskosten entnehmen konnen." That Aristion's proposal may have been 
known from a stone, I admit ; that Solon opposed it is not unlikely, even at his 
advanced age ; but it is quite as likely that the incident should have been in- 
vented. The suggestion concerning the public burial merits little consideration. 
Solon's " Kampfesfreudigkeit " is imknown to me. Von Stern's paper is chiefly 
valuable as a study of the development of the " solonisches Portrat." 



APPENDIX 7 307 

for the dissatisfaction to manifest itself which we learn of in 
his apologetic poems and for him to compose these poems. This 
might have been a matter of a few months or a few years. Of 
the length of his absence we know nothing. Even if we were 
convinced that he wrote a poem in which he announced that 
he would not return for ten years, this would not justify us in 
believing that he actually did remain away for that length of 
time. 



APPENDIX 8 
DEATH AND BURIAL 

According to Phanias of Eresos (ap. Plut. Sol. xxxii) Solon 
lived less than two years after the usurpation of Pisistratus ; 
the usurpation occurred in the archonship of Corneas, and Solon 
died in the archonship of Hegest.ratus, the successor of Corneas. 
That the death of Solon was placed in a definite archonship is 
also apparent from Const, of Ath. xvii 2, although the name of 
the archon is not given. Aelian, also, says (F. H. viii 16) that 
Solon died at an advanced age soon after the usurpation. Ac- 
cording to Heracleides Ponticus (ap. Plut. Sol. xxxii) he lived 
for a long time after the usurpation. Diogenes Laertius (i 62) 
states that he died in Cyprus at the age of eighty. Cyprus is 
given as the place of his death also by Vit. Sol. (Westermann, 
p. 113), Schol. Plat. Rep. x 599 e, Schol. Dem. xlv 64, Suidas 
s. V. So\a)z^, and Valerius Maximus v 3, Ext. 3. That he was 
eighty years old is also stated by Schol. Plat. loc. cit. 

Plutarch (^Sol. xxxii) reports a story that his body was 
burned and his ashes scattered over the island of Salamis. He 
himself finds the story incredible ; but it has the authority, he 
says, of Aristotle and other reputable writers. Diogenes Laer- 
tius (i 62) says that before his death in Cyprus, Solon had given 
directions that his bones should be carried back to Salamis and 
there burned, and that the ashes should be scattered over the 
country. This is the reason, he continues, why Cratinus in his 
comedy called Xet/jcot'e? puts into Solon's mouth the words : 

Ofc/c(w 8e vijaov, ft)? /lev avOpoiircov X070?, 
iairapfievo^ Kara Trdaav Ata^'ro? iroXiv. 

308 



APPENDIX 8 309 

Aristides xlvi 172 (vol. 2, p. 230 Dindorf) alludes to the belief 
that Solon's ashes had been scattered over Salamis and that he 
was the guardian of the island. Aelian ( V. IT. viii 16) states 
that Solon was buried at the public expense close by the city 
wall (i.e., of Athens) at the left of the gate as one enters, and 
that his grave was surrounded with a wall. Valerius Maximus 
(/. c. ) says that Solon spent his old age in Cyprus and was not 
even buried in his native land, implying that he was buried in 
Cyprus ; and he gives an anecdote of Solon's deathbed of which 
nothing need be said (viii 7, ext. 14). 

We have found reason to believe that Solon visited Cyprus 
soon after his archonship, and in xxv he announced his return 
to Athens. It is probable therefore that the tradition of his 
death in Cyprus is to be rejected, together with the erroneous 
tradition that he went to Cyprus at the time of the usurpation of 
Pisistratus. It has been suggested that the date of his travels was 
pushed forward in order to provide chronological justification 
fo the interview with Croesus ; and it is also suggested that the 
tradition of his death and burial in Cyprus may have originated 
in the belief that he was in some sort the founder of Soli and in 
the desire of the people of Soli to have his bones buried in their 
land. 

The legend of the scattering of the ashes over Salamis is at 
least as old as the middle of the fifth century B.C. (Cratinus). 
Its significance as a legend has been discussed above ; but we 
cannot admit that it is more than legend. If, however, this 
legend was known in the fifth century, it seems unlikely that 
at the same time a grave by the walls of Athens should have 
been recognized as Solon's grave (Aelian). This grave must 
have been later identified, rightly or wrongly, as Solon's resting- 
place. 

Is any special authority to be attached to the statement of 
Phanias of Eresos because he assigns the death of Solon to a 
definite archonship ? There may have been some documentary 



310 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

record of this fact, in the form of a grave inscription or an in- 
scription on a statue. But it is perhaps more likely that gen- 
eral considerations led writers to conclude that Solon could not 
have lived long after the date of Pisistratus' usurpation, and 
therefore to assign his death to the very next year. We must 
conclude that the date of his death and his age at death cannot 
be exactly determined. At any rate no event in his life is 
recorded which can be placed later than the year of Pisistratus' 
usurpation, which is variously fixed at 561-60 and 560-59. 

Towards the end of the fifth century a statue of Solon was 
set up in the market place of Salamis (Aeschines i 25 f.; Dem. 
xix 251). Aelian ( V. H, viii 16) says that a bronze statue was 
set up in the market place, presumably the market place of 
Athens ; and Pausanias (i 16, 1) saw a bronze statue of Solon 
in front of the Stoa Poicile. 



APPENDIX 9 

A. List of the Ancient Authors in whose Works Fragments of 
Solon's Poems have been Preserved 

Anatolius. irepl 8e/ca8os kol twv ivros avTrjs apiOfxiov. A recension of this 
tractate by J. L. Ileiberg is to be found in an article by him entitled : 
"Anatolius sur les dix premiers nombres," which appeared in Annales 
Internationales d'histoire, Confjres de Paris, 1900. 5^ Section, Ilistoire 
des Sciences V (1901), 27 ff. 

Apostolius. In Paroemiographi Graeci, II. 

AristideSj ed. Dindorf, Leipsic, 1829. 

Aristotle. Constitution of Athens; ed. Sandys, London, 1912. 

Metaphysics; ed. Bekker. 

Politics ; ed. Bekker. 

Rhetoric ; ed. Bekker. 

Arsenius. In Paroemiographi Graeci, II. 

Athenaeus, ed. Kaibel, Leipsic, 1887-1890. 

Basilius Magnus. Sermo de legendis libris gentilium. In Migne, Patro- 
logia Graeca, XXXI, 575 ff. 

Choricius Gazaeus, ed. Boissonade, Paris, 1846. 

Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata i-vi; ed. Stahlin, Leipsic, 1906. 

Demosthenes, ed. Butcher, Oxford, 1903. 

Diodorus Siculus, bks. i-xv, ed. Bekker-Dindorf-Vogel, Leipsic, 1888-1893; 
bks. xvi-xx, ed. Bekker-Dindorf-Fischer, Leipsic, 1906. 

Diogenes Laertius, ed. Cobet, Paris, 1878. 

Diogenianus. In Paroemiographi Graeci, I. 

Eusehius. Evangelicae Praeparationis Libri xv; ed. Gifford, Oxiord, 1903. 

Gregorius Cyprius. In Paroemiographi Graeci, 11. 

Hermias. Hermiae Alexandrini in Platonis Phaedrum Scholia; ed. Cou- 
vreur, Paris, 1901. In Bibliotheque de I'Ecole des Hautes Etudes; 
Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, Fasc. 133. 

lohannnes Siceliotes. In Rhetores Graeci, VI. 

Lucian, ed. Jacobitz, Leipsic, 1907-1913. 

Macarius. In Paroemiographi Graeci, II. 

Nicetas Choniates. De rebus post captam urbem gestis. In Migne, Patro- 
logia Graeca, CXXXIX, 968. 

311 



312 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Philo, ed. Cohn and Wendland ; 5 vols., Berlin, 1896. Volume 1, contain- 
ing De opificio mundi, is edited by Cohn. 

Photiiis. Lexicon; ed. Naber, Leyden, 1864. 

Phrynichus, ed. Rutherford, London, 1881. 

Plato, ed. Burnet; 5 vols., Oxford, 1899-1906. 

Plutarch. Vitae Parallelae ; ed. Sintenis, Leipsic, 1873-1875 

Moralia ; ed. Bernardakis, Leipsic, 1895. 

Pollux. Onomasticum ; ed. Dindorf, Leipsic, 1824. 

Proclus. In Platonis Timaeum commentaria ; ed. Diehl, Leipsic, 1903-1906. 

Scholia to Demosthenes : ed. Dindorf, Oxford, 1851. 

Scholia to Pindar; ed. Abel, Budapest, 1883-1891. 

Scholia to Plato ; ed. Hermann, Leipsic, 1870. 

Scholia to Sophocles; ed. Elmsley-Dindorf, Oxford, 1825-1852. 

Stohaeus. Florilegium ; ed. Wachsmuth-IIense ; 5 vols., Berlin, 1884-1912. 

Suidas. Lexicon ; ed. Bekker, Berlin, 1854. 

Tatian, ed. Schwartz, 1888. In Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte 
der altchristlichen Literatur ; ed. Gebhardt und Harnack, IV. 

Theodoretus. Graecarum affectionum curatio ; ed. Raeder, Leipsic, 1904. 

Theognis, ed. Hudson- Williams, London, 1910. 

Zenohius. In Paroemiographi Graeci, I. 

B. List of the Editions of the Fragments of Solon 

Bach, Nicholas. Solonis carminum quae supersunt. Bonn, 1825. 

Bergk, Theodor. Poetae Lyrici Graeci ; ed. 4, vol. 2, Leipsic, 1882. 

Biese, Alfred. Griechische Lyriker in Auswahl fiir den Schulgebrauch 

herausgegeben ; ed. 2, Vienna, 1902. 
Boissonade, J. F. Poetes grecs. 3 vols., Paris, 1823-1832. 
Brunck, R. F. P. 'H^ik^ ir-oi-qcns sive gnomici poetae Graeci ad optimorum 

exemplarium fidem emendavit ; ed. 2, Leipsic, 1817. 
Bucherer, Fritz. Anthologie aus den griechischen Lyrikern. Gotha, 1904. 
Buchholtz-Peppmiiller. Anthologie aus den Lyrikern der Griechen fiir den 

Schul- und Privatgebrauch erklart und mit litterarhistorischen Ein- 

leitungen versehen von E. Buchholtz. Band I, Die Elegiker und lambo- 

graphen enthaltend, 5. Aufl. besorgt von R. Peppmiiller, Leipsic, 1900. 
Fortlage, F. A. Solonis Atheniensis carminum f ragmenta ; Graeca cum 

var. lect. notisque ed. Leipsic, 1776. 
Gaisford, Thomas. Poetae Minores Graeci. Vol. 3, Leipsic, 1823. 
Hartung, J. A. Die griechischen Elegiker. Griechisch mit metrischer 

Uebersetzung und prufenden und erklarenden Anmerkungen. Vol. 1, 

Leipsic, 1859. 



APPENDIX 9 313 

Hiller-Crusius. Antliologia Lyrica sive Lyricorum Graecorum Veterum 
praeter Pindaruiu Reliquiae Potiores. Post Theodorum Bergkium 
quartum edidit Eduardius Hiller. Exemplar emendavit atque novis 
Solonis aliorumque fragmentis auxit O. Crusius. Leipsic, 1897. 

Kynaston, Herbert. Extracts from the Greek Elegiac Poets. London, 1890. 

Lorenzo, N. di. Solonis carmina selecta con comenti ad uso delle scuole 
del dott. Torino, 1905. 

Pomtow, Johannes. Poetae lyrici Graeci minores. Leipsic, 1885. 

Schneidewin, F. G. Delectus Poetarum Elegiacorum Graecorum. Got- 
tingen, 1837. 

Stoll, H. W. Anthologie gTiechischer Lyriker fiir die obersten Klassen der 
Gymnasien mit litterarhistorischen Eiuleitungen und erklarenden 
Anmerkungen; 6. Aufl., 1. Abt., Halle, 1888. 

Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, U. von. Griechisches Lesebuch. Berlin, 1902. 

Sappho und Simonides. Untersuchungen iiber griechische Lyriker. 

Berlin, 1913. 

(\ General Bibliography 

The titles of historical works which appeared earlier than 1895 may be 
found in Busolt (1895). They are not repeated here except in certain in- 
stances. A complete philological bibliography may be found in the reports 
on the Greek lyric poets in Bursian's Jahresberichte in the following volumes : 
XXXIII (1883), XLVI (1886), and LIV (1888) by E. Hiller; LXXV 
(1893), XCII (1897), CIV (1900), and CXXXIII (1907) by J. Sitzler. 

Adler, G. Solon und die Bauernbefreiung in Attika. Vierteljahrschrift 

fur Staats- und Yolkswirtschaft, IV (1896), 107-132. 
Beloch, K. J. Griechische Geschichte ; 2. Aufl,, 1. Bd., Strassburg, 1. Abt. 

(1912), 2. Abt. (1913). 
Bergk, T. Kritische Analekten. Philologus, XVI (ISfC ;, 685, 586. 
Zur griechischen Literatur. Rh. Mus., XXXVI (1881) -- Kleine philo- 

logische Schriften. 2. Bd., Halle, 1886. 
Blass, F. Solon und Mimnernos. Jahrb. f. class. Phil., CXXX V[I (1888), 

742. 

ed. Demosthenis Orationes ; ed. 4, vol. 1, Leipsic, 1903. 

Boissonade, F. F., ed. Anecdota Graeca. Vol. 4, Paris, 1832. 

Busolt, G. Griechische Geschichte ; ed. 2, Gotha ; vol. 1, 1893 ; vol. 2, 1895. 

Cavaignac, E. Sur les variations du sens des classes " soloniennes." Rev. 

de phil., XXXII (1908), 36 ff. 
Cerrato, L. Studio sui frammenti del carmi soloniani. Riv. di fil., VI 

(1878), 75-126. 
Solone : Saggio critico-biografico. Riv. di fil., VII (1879), 209 ff., 289 ff. 



314 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Christ, W. Die solonische Miinz- und Gewichtsreform nach Aristoteles. 

S-B. d. philos.-philol. u. hist. Classe d. K. B. Akad. d. Wiss., Munich, 

1900, pp. 118-132. 
Clapp, E. B. AtTrapat 'A^avat. Class. Phil., V (1910), 100, 101. 
Classical Review V (1891), 105 ff. Notes on the text of the 'AOrjvatojv Uo- 

kiTcta by various scholars. 
Clemm, W. Zu den griechischen Elegikern. Jahrb. f . class. Phil., CXXVH 

(1883), 1-18. 
Cramer, J. A. Anecdota Graeca. Oxford, 1839. 

Croiset, A. La poesie de Pindare et les lois du lyrisme grec. Paris, 1880. 
Croiset, M. La morale et la cite dans les poesies de Solon. C-R. de I'Acad. 

des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 1903, pp. 581-696. 
Crusius, O. Die Schrift vom Staate der Athener. Philologus, I (1891), 177. 

Solon 21. Philologus, LIV (1895), 559. 

Daremberg, C. Etat de la medecine entre Homere et Hippocrate. Paris, 

1869. 
Diels, H. Solon frag. iv. 21. Hermes XXIH (1888), 279-288. 

Onomatologisches. Hermes XXXVII (1902), 480, 481. 

Drerup, E. Ueber die bei den attischen Rednern eingelegten Urkunden. 

Jahrb. f. class. Phil., Supp. XXIV (1898), 221-366. 
Flach, H. Geschichte der griechischen Lyrik. Tiibingen, 1884. 
Fraccaroli, G. Due versi di Solone. Riv. di fil., XXI (1893), 49, 50. 
Gilliard, C. Quelques reformes de Solon : Essai de critique historique. 

Lausanne, 1907. 
Girard, J. Le sentiment religieux en Grece d'Homere a Eschyle. Paris, 

1869. 
Glotz, G. La solidarite de la f amille dans le droit criminel en Grece. Paris, 

1904. 
Gomperz, T. Kritische Bemerkungen. Wiener Studien, II (1880), 1-20. 
Hadley, W. S. A correction in Solon. Class. Rev., VII (1903), 209. 
Hammer, J. E. Ad Solonem. Nord. Tidsskrift, XI (1902-1903), 47. 
Haupt, M. Index lectionum hibernarum 1859. In his Opuscula (Leipsic, 

1876), II, 173. 
Hecker, A. Epistola critica. Philologus, V (1850), 466, 467. 
Heidenhain, F. Zu Solon (frag. 9 Bgk.). Jahrb. f. class. Phil., CXXV 

(1882), 442-446. 
Heinemann, I. Studia. Solonea. Diss. Berlin, 1897. 
Hense, O. Di una elegia di Solone. Riv. di fil., II (1874), 305-314. 
Hiller, E. Die literarische Thatigkeit der Sieben Weisen. Rh. Mus. 

XXXIII (1878), 518-529. 
(1883, 1886, 1888). See introductory note. 



APPENDIX 315 

Jebb, R. C. On a fragment of Solon. Jour, of Phil., XXV (1897), 98-105. 

Keene, C. H. Miscellaneous Notes, riermathena, V (1885), 90-97. 

Keil, B. Die Solonische Verf assur g in Aristoteles Verfassungsgeschichte 

Athens. Berlin, 1892. 
Kenyon, F. G. Aristotle on the constitution of Athens. London, 1891. 
Aristotle on the Athenian Constitution ; translated with introduction 

and notes. London, 1891. 
Kirchner, J. Prosopographia Attica. 2 vols., Berlin, 1901-1903. 
Kumanudis, S. A. 'Ec^iy/xept? 'Ap^atoAoytKTy, III (1885), 215 ff. 
Lane, Mary C. Index to the Fragments of the Greek Elegiac and Iambic 

Poets. Cornell Studies, XVIII (1908). 
Larsen, S. En solonisk Studie. In Festskrift til J. L. Ussing, Copenhagen, 

1900. 
Leeuweu, J. van. Ad Solonis fragmentum xiii. Mnem., XXXII (1904), 

259, 260. 
Lehmann-Haupt, C. F. Weiteres zu Aristoteles *A6r}vaL0)v IIoAtTeta. Her- 
mes, XXXV (1900), 636 ff. 
Schatzmeister- und Archontenvrahl in Athen. Klio, VI (1906), 304- 

322. 
Griechische Geschichte. In Gercke and Norden, Einleitung in die Al- 

terturaswissenschaft. 3. Bd., Leipsic, 1912. 
Leutsch, E. L. von. Die griechischen Elegiker. II, Solon. Philologus, 

XXXI (1872), 129-171. 
Linder, C. G. De Solonis Elegia quae YnO0HKAI EI2 EAYTON inscri- 

bitur quaestiones nonnullae. Philologus, XIII (1858), 499 ff. 
Ludwich, A. Zu den Solonischen Fragmenten in der TroAtreia ^Kdrjvaioiv. 

Berl. phiL Wochenschr., XXIII (1903), 700, 732, 733, 765. 
Lugebil, K. See Rost and Lugebil. 

Madvig, J. N. Adversaria Critica. Vol. 1 (Hauniae, 1871), 570. 
Mekler, S. Lucubrationum criticarum capita quinque. Progr. Wien, 1895. 
Mess, A. von. Aristoteles 'AOrjvatoiv IIoXtTeia und die politische Schriftstel- 

lerei Athens. Rh. Mus. LXVI (1911), 356 ff. 
Meyer, E. Geschichte des Alterthums. Vol. 2, Stuttgart, 1893. 
Murray, G. A. G. Adnotationes ad poetas elegiacos Graecos. Philologus, 

XLVIII (1889), 363-365. 
Nageotte, E. Histoire de la po^sie lyrique grecque. Paris, 1888. 
Xauck, A. Zu Solon und Sophocles. Philologus, V (1850), 575, 576. 
Niemeyer, K. Zu Aristoteles 'Adrjvaiiov XIoAtrcttt. Jahrb. f. class. Phil., 

CXLIII (1891), 405 ff. 
Paroemiographi Graeci; ed. von Leutsch und Schneidewin, Gottingen, 

1839-1851. 



316 SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

Perrin, B. Plutarch's Lives with an English translation. Vol. 1, New York, 

1914. 
Piccolomini, E. In Aristotelem et Herodam animadversiones criticae. Riv. 

di fil., XX (1892), 460. 
Di una reminiscenza Soloniana presso Cratino e presso Aristofane. 

Rendiconti della Reale accademia dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, 

storiche e filologiche, Serie quinta, IV (1895), 69-85. 
Piatt, A. Notes on Solon. Jour, of Phil., XXIV (1896), 248-262. 

On a fragment of Solon. Jour, of Phil., XXVI (1898), 64, 65. 

Richards, H. Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. Class. Rev., VII (1893), 

209 ff. 
Rost, J., and Lugebil, K. Zu Solons Fragmenten. Neues Jahrb. f. Phil., 

CXXIX (1884), 816-820. 
Sanctis, G. de. AT©IS- Storia della repubblica ateniese dalle origini alia 

eta di Pericle. Turin, 1912. 
Schaefer, G. IL, ed. Demosthenes. London, 1825. 

Schmidt, M. Zu Solons zwoHter Elegie. Mus. f . Phil., V (1847), 624-626. 
Schneidewin, F. W. Variae Lectiones. Philologus, III (1848), 110 ff. 
Seeck, O. Quellenstudien zu des Aristoteles Verf assungsgeschichte Athens. 

Beitrage zur alten Gesch., IV (1904), 164-181, 270^26. 
Shilleto, R., ed. Demosthenes de falsa legatione. Cambridge, 1874. 
Shorey, P. Solon's Trochaics to Phokos. Class. Phil., VI (1911), 216-218. 
Sitzler, J. Zu Solons Fragmenten. Jahrb. f. class. Phil., CXIX (1879), 

668-672. 
Einige Bemerkungen iiber die Sprache der griechischen Elegiker. 

Jahrb. f. class. Phil., CXXV (1882), 504-518. 

(1894, 1897, 1900, 1907). See introductory note. 

Sondhaus, K. De Solonis legibus. Diss. Jena, 1909. 

Stadtmiiller, H. Emendationes in poetis Graecis. In Festschrift zur 36. 

Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmanner zu Karlsruhe, 

1882, 59-75. 
Stern, E. von. Solon und Peisistratos. Hermes, XL VIII (1913), 426-441. 
Toepifer, J. Quaestiones Pisistrateae. Diss. Dorpat, 1886. In his Beitrage 

zur griech. Altertumswissenschaft, Berlin, 1897. 

Attische Genealogie. Berlin, 1889. 

Tucker, T. G. Solon eh iavTov. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc, 1887, 4, 5. 
Voemel, I. T., ed. Demosthenes Orationes contra Aeschinem de corona et de 

falsa lef/atione, Leipsic, 1862. 
Weigel, F. Quaestiones de vetustiorum poetarum elegiacorum Graecorum 

sermone ad syntaxim, copiam, vim verborum pertinentes. Diss. phil. 

Vindob., Ill (1891), 109 fe. 



APPENDIX 9 317 

Weil, H. Ueber Spuren strophischer Composition bei den alten griech- 
ischen Elegikern. Rh. Mus., XVII (1862), 1-13. 

ed. Les Plaidoyers politiques de D^mosthene. Vol. 1, Paris, 1883. 

Westermann, A. Btdypa<^ot. Yitarum Scriptores Graeci Minores. Bruns- 
wick, 1845. 

Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von. Aristoteles und Athen. Berlin, 1893. 

AVilbrandt, ]M. Die politische und soziale Bedeutung der attischen Ge- 
schlechter vor Solon. Philologus, Supp. VII (1898), 133-227. 

Wilcken, U. Zu Aristoteles IIoAtTeia 'A^7;vaiW. Hermes, XXX (1895), 620. 

Wulf, H. De f abellis cum collegii septem sapientium memoria coniunctis 
quaestiones criticae. Diss. phil. Halenses, XIII (1895), 163 ff. 



318 



SOLON THE ATHENIAN 

D. Table of Parallel References 



This 
Edition 


Berqk 


HlLLER- 

Crusius 


Bergk 


This Edition 


HlLLER- 

Crusius 


This Edition 


i 


18 


17 


1 


XX 


1 


XX. xxxiv. 


ii 


23 


21 


2 


xxxiv 




xxxv 


iii 




27 a 


3 


XXXV 


2 


xii 


iv 





27 c 


4 


xii 


3 


vi 


V 





27 b 


5 


vi 


4.5 


vii 


vi 


5 


3 


6 


vii 


6 


xxiii 


vii 


6.8—. 


4.5 


7 


xxiii 


7 


xiii 


viii 


—.34.35.— 


30.31 


8 


vii 


8 


xxxvi 


ix 


—.36, 1-19. 


32 


9 


xiii 


9.10 


xiv 




37 




10 


xxxvi 


11 


xix 


X 




32 a 


11 


xiv 


12 


xl 


xi 


36, 20f.— 


32 b 


12 


xix 


13 


xli 


xii 


4 


2 


13 


xl 


14 


xvii 


xiii 


9 


7 


14 


xli 


15 


xxxi 


xiv 


11 


9.10 


15 


xvii 


16 


xxxii 


XV 


27 


27 


16 


xxxi 


17- 


i 


xvi. xvi a 


24 


22 


17 


xxxii 


18 


xxv 


xvii 


15 


14 


18 


i 


19 


xxvi. xxxvii 


xviii 


31 


36 


19 


xxv 


20 


xxxix 


xix 

XX 


12 


11 


20 


xxxvii 


21 


ii 


1 


1, If. 


21 


xxvi 


22 


xvi. xvi a 


xxi 


32 


28 


22 


xxxix 


23 


xxvii 


xxii 


33 


29 


23 


ii 


24 


xxviii 


xxiii 
xxiv 


7 
28 


6 
25 


24 
25 


xvi. xvi a 
::xvii 


25 

26 


xxiv 

xlvi 


xxv 


19 


18 


26 


xxviii 


27 


XV 


xxvi 


21 


19, 5f. 


27 


XV 


27 a 


iii 


xxvii 


25 


23 


28 


xxiv 


27 b 


V 


xxviii 


26 


24 


29 


xlvi 


27 c 


iv 


xxix 


39 


34 


30 


xlv 


28 


xxi 




40 


35 


31 


x-.aii 


29 


xxii 


xxxi 


16 


15 


32 


xxi 


30.31 


viii 


xxxii 


17 


16 


33 


xxii 


32 


ix 


xxxiii 


38 


33 


34 


viii 


32 a 
32 b 


X 


xxxiv 


2 


1, 3-6 


35 


viii 


xi 


XXXV 


3 


1, 4f. 


36 


ix. xi 


33 


xxxiii 


xxxvi 


10 


8 


37 


ix 


34 


xxix 


xxxvii 


20 


19, 1-4 


38 


xxxiii 


35 


XXX 


xxxviii 


42 


Scholia 30, 
p. 333 


39 
40 


xxix 

XXX 


36 


xviii 


xxxix 


22 


20 


41 


xliv 






xl 


13 


12 


42 


xxxviii 1 






xli 


14 


13 


43 


xlii 






xlii 


43 


— 


44 


xliii 






xliii 


44 


— 










xliv 


41 


— 










xlv 


30 


— 










xlvi 


29 


26 






.- 














.o> s^-^^'^. ■■^^^'- \> 



>s- - ■^' 



>.„^'<' . 



^v <j^. 



-o" c « ' ^ * 








V 




>• " ^ A. 




0^ : 




%t 






./^-^ 


x^''-'^ A Xi. 










.^ -^c^. 



-■>, 



./. ' 'J s o \ 



.■-l^' 



,^^ 






^^ 



•^>.,v>- 






•x'^^ % 



o 0^ 



:\. 









-•':. -^^^ 



.^'^ 



...'i"' ^ 






5.^ 



,S -7\ 



''^A v^^ 



"oo^ 



v^ 



^ -^A 






■^,, ': 



<-^ v^- 



''^- ^^'*' 

..s^ ^^.. 






*. 






\- 








\ 


/■ 




^^^.^;;:#^\\ 


^^ 


'\ 




, s A 








" ./. 


... ■' ' 


f, ^ 




"a v*' -\ 









\V •/*. 



s -r. 



>. ^^ 



"^'ft a"^ 






oo' 






t'?-- 



A' 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

0002b7bifli5 



Wk 



